HE 

&70S 

.X&4 

I9H 


UC-NRLF 


GIFT  OF 


8061  -'12  'NVf  UVd 
'A   •N'9s 


INTERSTATE  COMMERCE 

COMMISSION  CASES 
IN  THE  FEDERAL  COURTS 

1887  TO  1914 


SECOND  EDITION 


DIVISION  OF  INDICES 


WASHINGTON     ' 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1914 


INTERSTATE  COMMERCE 

COMMISSION  CASES 
IN  THE  FEDERAL  COURTS 

1887  TO  1914 


SECOND  EDITION 


DIVISION  OF  INDICES 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1914 


LETTER  OF  TRANSMITTAL. 


INTERSTATE  COMMERCE  COMMISSION, 

DIVISION  OF  INDICES, 

December  1, 19H. 
To  THE  COMMISSION  : 

The  cases  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  which  have  been 
reviewed  by  the  Federal  courts,  since  its  organization  to  December  1, 
1914,  are  scattered  through  so  many  volumes  of  reports  and  opinions 
and  so  vary  in  their  titles  that  it  is  sometimes  difficult  to  locate  the 
different  stages  of  the  same  proceeding  before  the  successive  tribunals. 
This  office  is  in  receipt  of  constant  requests  for  citations  to  thesa 
cases  for  verification,  as  precedents,  or  for  answers  to  correspondents, 
until  it  has  become  necessary  to  prepare  a  complete  list,  with  brief 
points  decided,  to  save  time  and  labor  of  inquiry  or  research  of  those 
in  the  other  offices  of  the  Commission  who  may  require  the  informa- 
tion. 

Such  a  list  is  herewith  submitted  with  dates  of  decision,  commis- 
sioner or  judge  delivering  opinion,  docket  and  opinion  numbers,  and 
such  other  data  as  will  enable  the  reader  to  readily  locate  the  opinion 
desired  if  further  investigation  requires. 
Respectfully, 

HENRY  TALBOTT,  Chief. 

(8) 


INTERSTATE  COMMERCE  COMMISSION 


JAMES  S.  HAELAN,  OF  ILLINOIS. 

JUDSON  C.  CLEMENTS,  or  GEORGIA. 

EDGAE  E.  CLAEK,  OF  IOWA. 

CHAELES  C.  McCHOED,  OF  KENTUCKY. 

BALTHASAE  H.  MEYEE,  OF  WISCONSIN. 

H.  CLAY  HALL,  OF  COLORADO. 

WINTHEOP  MOEE  DANIELS,  OF  NEW  JERSEY. 

GEORGE  B.  McGiNTY,  Secretary. 

(5) 


CASES  IN   THE  FEDERAL  COURTS. 

[For  table  of  cases  see  p.  95.] 
COLORED    PASSENGER    CASE. 

Heard  v.  Georgia  R.  R.  Co. 

1  I.  C.  C.  428.    February  15,  1888. 

Docket  No.  46.     Op.  31.     Schoonmaker,  Comr. 

Negroes,  who  paid  first-class  fare,  were  not  afforded  passenger  accommoda- 
tions equal  to  those  furnished  to  white  passengers.  Held,  that  this  constitutes 
a  violation  of  section  3,  which  the  carriers  are  ordered  to  discontinue. 

Heard  v.  Georgia  R.  R.  Co. 

3  I.  C.  C.  111.    May  8,  1889.     (See  3d  Ann.  Rep.,  21.) 

Docket  No.  166.     Op.  74.     Bragg,  Comr. 

Denial  to  negro  passengers  of  accommodations  equal  to  those  furnished  white 
passengers,  held  to  be  in  violation  of  section  3,  which  the  carriers  are  ordered 
to  discontinue. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Georgia  R.  R.  Co. 

Not  reported.     (For  pleadings  see  5th  Ann.  Rep.,  302-307.) 

C.  C.,  N.  D.  Ga.,  E.'l). 

Bill  filed  by  Commission  for  enforcement  of  its  order,  but  case  was  discon- 
tinued in  1899,  the  reasons  for  further  prosecuting  the  case  having  largely 
disappeared.  • 


KENTUCKY  &   INDIANA  BRIDGE   CASE. 

Kentucky  &  Indiana  Bridge  Co.  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 

2  I.  C.  C.  162;  2  I.  C.  C.,  193.     August  2,  1888.     (See  2d  Ann.  Rep.,  11.) 

Docket  No.  118.     Ops.  49  and  50.     Cooley  and  Schoonmaker,  Comr  a. 

Defendant  carrier  ordered  to  cease  denying  to  complainant  bridge  company 
facilities  for  the  interchange  of  traffic,  on  the  ground  that  such  bridge  company 
is  a  common  carrier  and  that  such  denial  is  a  violation  of  the  second  paragraph 
of  section  3  of  the  act. 

*1  ~ 

fc  sntucky  &  Indiana  Bridge  Co.  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 
37  Fed.  567.     January  7,  1889. 

C.  C.,  D.  Ky.     Jackson,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  the  bridge  company 
is  not  a  common  carrier  and  therefore  not  entitled  to  compel  a  railroad  company 
to  transact  business  with  or  through  it. 

Kentucky  &  Indiana  Bridge  'Co.  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 

149  U.  S.  777.     March  30,  1893.    Per  curiam. 
Case  discontinued  and  appeal  dismissed  under  Supreme  Court  rule  No.  10. 


;      s 

.*.     •  •.'•*.:•  .•^A«3»Y   RATE   CASE. 

Pittsburgh,  Cincinnati  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co.  v.  Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co. 
3  I  C.  C.  465.    February  21,  1890.     ( See  4th  Ann.  Rep.,  9. ) 

Docket  No.  215.     Op.  83*.     Veazey,  Comr. 

Defendant  carrier  ordered  to  cease  issuing  party-rate  tickets,  by  means  of 
which  each  member  of  a  group  can  travel  at  a  rate  of  fare  that  is  lower  than 
the  ordinary  fare  charged  an  individual  passenger  traveling  alone,  on  the 
ground  that  such  party  rates  are  illegal  and  constitute  an  unjust  discrimination. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co. 
43  Fed.  37.     August  11,  1890. 

C.  C.,  S.  D.,  Ohio,  W.  D.     Jackson,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  ground  that  party  rates  are  not 
illegal  nor  in  violation  of  sections  2  and  3. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co. 

145  U.  S.  263.    May  16,  1892.    Brown,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  stated  by  the  circuit 
court.  Held  further,  that  section  22,  permitting  the  issuance  of  commutation, 
excursion,  and  mileage  tickets,  is  illustrative  rather  than  exclusive. 


FREE   CARTAGE   CASE. 

Stone  &  Garten  v.  Detroit,  Grand  Haven  &  Milwaukee  Ry.  Co. 
3  I.  C.  C.  613.    April  26,  1890. 

Docket  No.  149.     Op.  90.     Cooley,  Comr. 

On  traffic  moving  from  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  carriers  ordered  to  cease  furnishing 
free  cartage,  without  tariff  authority,  at  Grand  Rapids,  Mich.,  the  farther-dis- 
tance point,  while  denying  such  free  service  at  Ionia,  Mich.,  a  shorter-distance 
point  (1)  on  the  ground  that  it  constituted  an  illegal  rebate;  and  (2)  on  the 
ground  that  it  constituted  a  violation  of  section  4  in  this :  that,  the  transpor- 
tation rate  being  the  same  to  both  Grand  Rapids  and  Ionia,  the  imposition  of  an 
additional  charge  for  the  cartage  service  at  Ionia  while  no  such  charge  was 
imposed  at  Grand  Rapids,  made  the  total  charges  higher  for  the  shorter  haul. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Detroit,  Grand  Haven  &  Milwaukee  Ry.  Co. 
57  Fed.  1005.  October  6,  1893. 

C.  C.,  W.  D.,  Mich.,  S.  D.     Taft,^. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  on  the  ground  that  the  facts  show  a 
violation  of  section  4. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  r.  Detroit.  Grand  Haven  &  Milwaukee  Ry.  C<* 

167  IT.  S.  633.    May  24,  1897.    Shiras,  J.  \ 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  (1)  on  the  ground  that  the  granting  of 
free  cartage  at  Grand  Rapids  is  not  a  rebate  nor  in  violation  of  section  6  be-| 
cause  such  privilege  had  been  openly  and  notoriously  enjoyed  for  25  years  and  j 
further  because  the  Commission  had  not  directed  the  carriers  to  include  such 
matters  in  their  tariffs;  and  (2)  on  the  ground  that  there  is  no  violation  of 
section  4  for  the  reason  that  the  long-and-short  fiaul  provision  can  have  no 
application  to  this  case,  because  section  4  has  in  view  only  the  transportation 
of  passengers  and  property  by  rail. 


9 

SAN    BERNARDINO    CASE. 

San  Bernardino  Board  of  Trade  v.  Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co. 

4  I.  C.  C.  104.     July  19,  1890. 
Docket  No.  199.     Op.  100.     Morrison,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  cease  charging  the  existing  rate  on  various  articles  from 
the  Missouri  River  and  points  farther  east,  which  are  higher  for  the  shorter  haul 
to  San  Bernardino,  Cal.,  than  for  the  longer  haul  to  Los  Angeles,  Cal.,  on  the 
ground  that  such  rates  are  in  violation  of  section  4. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co. 
50  Fed.  295.     April  25,  1892. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  Cal.     Ross,  /. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  the  presence  of 
water  competition  and  competition  between  carriers  subject  to  the  act  at  the 
farther-distance  point  justifies  the  existing  'rate  adjustment. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co. 

149  TJ.  S.  264.     May  1,  1893.     Fuller,  C.  J, 

Appeal  dismissed  on  the  ground  that  the  case  should  have  been  taken  to 
the  Federal  circuit  court  of  appeals. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co. 

Not  reported. 
C.  C.  A.  9th  Cir. 
Case  abandoned  after  appeal  was  taken. 


IMPORT    RATE    CASE. 

New  York  Board  of  Trade  f.  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co. 
4  I.  C.  C.  447.     January  29,  1891. 

Docket  No.  248.     Op.  115.     Bragg,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  cease  charging  lower  rates  on  imported  goods  than  on 
domestic  goods  for  transportation  from  a  port  of  the  United  States  to  an 
interior  point  therein  on  the  ground  that  the  existing  rate  adjustment  con- 
stitutes an  unjust  discrimination  and  undue  prejudice. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  r.  Texas  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 

4  I.  C.  Rep.  62.     Not  in  Federal  Reporter.     April  4,  1892. 
C.  C.  S.  D.  N.  Y.     Wallace,  J. 
Principal  office  within  meaning  of  section  16,  construed. 


Commerce  Commission  >:.  Texas  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 
52  Fed.  187.     October  4,  1892. 
C.  C.,  S.  D.,  N.  Y.     Wallace,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  on  the  ground  that  the  matters  com- 
plained of  constituted  violations  of  sections  2  and  3. 

Texas  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

57  Fed.  948.     October  17,  1893. 
C.  C.  A.  2cl  Cir.     Shipman,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  on  ground  stated  by  circuit  court. 


10 

Texas  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

162  TT.  S.  197.    March  30,  1896.     Shiras,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  the  Commission 
erred  in  not  considering  foreign  competition  as  an  element  creating  dissimi- 
larity of  circumstances  that  justifies  the  existing  rate  adjustment. 


COXE  BEOS.  COAL  CASE. 

Coxe  Bros.  &  Co.  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co. 
4  I.  C.  C".  535.    March  13,  1891. 

Docket  No.  150.     Op.  116.     Morrison,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  the  former  basis  certain  advanced  rates  on 
anthracite  coal  from  Pennsylvania  to  Perth  Amboy,  N.  J.,  on  the  ground  that 
the  advanced  rates  are  unreasonable. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co. 
49  Fed.  177.     January  15,  1892. 

C.  C.  E.  D.  Pa.    Acheson,  J. 

Commission's  motion  for  preliminary  injunction  compelling  carriers  to  com- 
ply with  Commission's  order  denied. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co. 
74  Fed.  784.    May  11,  1896. 

C.  C.  E.  D.  Pa.    Acheson,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  (1)  on  the  ground  that  the  Com- 
mission erred  in  adopting  an  unreliable  principle  for  determining  the  cost  of 
the  service,  and  (2)  on  the  ground  that  the  Commission  is  without  power  to 
fix  rates. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co. 

82  Fed.  1002.    October  1,  1897. 
C.  C.  A.  3d  Cir.     Per  curiam. 
Appeal  withdrawn  upon  motion  of  Commission. 


DELAWARE    STATE    GRANGE    CASE. 

Delaware  State  Grange  v.  New  York,  Philadelphia  &  Norfolk  R.  R.  Co. 

4  I.  C.  C.  588.    April  13,  1891. 

5  I  C.  C.  161.    March  18,  1892. 

Docket  No.  102.     Ops.  120  and  138.     By  the  Commission. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a   specified  amount  the  rates  on  fruit  and 
vegetables   and    other    perishable   freight   from    Delaware    and    Maryland  t     to 
Jersey  City,  N.  J.,  and  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  on  the  ground  that  the  existing  rat 
are  unreasonable. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  New  York,  Philadelphia  &  Norfolk  R. 

Co. 

Not  reported. 

C.  C.  E.  D.  Va. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid.  No  appeal.  ( See  7th  Annual  Report, 
p.  29;  Senate  Hearings,  Committee  on  Interstate  Commerce,  1904-5,  vol.  5, 
p.  312.) 


1 1 

INTERCHANGE  OF  TBAFFIC  CASE. 

New  York  &  Northern  Ry.  Co.  v.  New  York  &  New  England  R.  R.  Co. 
4  I.  C.  C.  702.    May  6,  1891.     (See  5th  Annual  Rep.,  49.) 

Docket  No.  268.     Op.  123.     Cooley,  Comr. 

Defendant  carrier  ordered  to  cease  denying  to  complainant  carrier  facilities 
for  the  interchange  of  traffic,  on  the  ground  that  such  denial  constitutes  a 
violation  of  the  second  paragraph  of  section  3. 

New  York  &  Northern  Ry.  Co.  v.  New  York  &  New  England  R.  R.  Co. 

50  Fed.  867.     May  31,  1892. 
C.  C.  S.  D.  N.  Y.    Lacombe,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid.    No  appeal. 


MANUFACTURERS'  COAL-RATE  CASE. 

In  re  Rates  on  Coal  by  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 
5  I.  C.  C.  466,      November  17,  1892. 

Docket  No.  307.     Op.  146.     McDill,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  the  rate  on  coal  to  Nashville, 
Tenn.,  on  the  ground  that  the  existing  rate  is  unreasonable  and  unjustly  dis- 
criminatory as  compared  with  the  rate  to  Memphis,  Tenn.  Carriers  further 
ordered  to  discontinue  the  practice  of  charging  different  rates  on  coal  during 
different  seasons  of  the  year,  on  the  ground  that  this  constitutes  an  unjust 
discrimination.  Carriers  further  ordered  to  discontinue  a  special  rate  on  coal 
when  used  for  manufacturing  purposes,  on  the  ground  that  this  constituted  an 
unjust  discrimination. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 
73  Fed.  409.    April  17,  1896. 

C.  C.,  M.  D.  Tenn.     Clark,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  grounds  (1)  that  the  Commis- 
sion is  without  power  to  fix  rates  and  especially  to  make  a  rate  to  one  point 
bear  a  definite  relation  to  a  rate  to  another  point;  (2)  that  a  carrier  has  the 
right  to  charge  different  rates  at  different  seasons  of  the  year;  and  (3)  that 
the  facts  do  not  show  a  violation  of  sections  2  and  3  of  the  act. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 
Not  reported. 

C.  C.  A.  6th  Cir. 

Appeal  by  Commission  abandoned  for  the  reason  that  the  Supreme  Court  had 
decided,  in  the  meantime,  that  the  Commission  is  without  power  to  fix  rates. 
(Senate  hearings,  Committee  on  Interstate  Commerce,  1904-1905,  vol.  5,  p.  313.) 


SOCIAL  CIRCLE  CASE. 

James  &  Mayer  Buggy  Co.  v.  Cincinnati,  New  Orleans  &  Texas  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 

4  I.  C.  C.  744.    June  29,  1891. 
^Docket  No.  245.     Op.  125.     Morrison,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  cease  charging  any  rates  on  buggies  and  carriages,  which 
are  higher  for  the  shorter  haul  to  Social  Circle,  Ga.,  than  for  the  longer  haul 
to  Augusta,  Ga.,  on  the  ground  that  such  rates  are  in  violation  of  section  4. 


12 

Carriers  further  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  the  rates  on  busies 
and  carriages  from  Cincinnati  to  Atlanta.  Ga.,  on  the  ground  that  the  existing 
rate  was  unreasonable.  Among  the  carriers  bound  by  the  order  was  the 
Georgia  Railroad  Co.,  whose  road  was  wholly  within  the  State  of  Georgia,  which 
was  held  to  be  subject  to  the  act,  on  the  ground  that  it  participated  in  the 
continuous  carriage  of  interstate  traffic,  moving  under  through  bills  of  lading, 
under  a  conventional  arrangement  for  a  division  of  the  through  rates. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission    r.  Cincinnati.   New  Orleans  &  Texas  Pacific 

Ry.  Co. 
56  Fed.  925.     June  3,  1893. 

C.  C.,  N.  D.  Ga.     Newman,  J. 

Commission's  order  to  be  invalid  (1)  on  the  ground  that  there  is  no  violation 
of  section  4.  because  the  rate  to  Social  Circle  was  over  a  "different  line";  (2) 
on  the  ground  that  the  rate  to  Atlanta  was  not  unreasonable  in  view  of  new 
facts  adduced  before  the  court  which  showed  that  lower  rates,  as  compared 
with  which  the  rate  was  held  unreasonable,  were  compelled  by  competition;  and 
(3)  on  th«*ground  that  the  Georgia  Railroad  was  not  subject  to  the  act. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Cincinnati,  New  Orleans  &  Texas  Pacific 

Ry.  Co. 

13  TJ.  S.  Apps.  730;  4  I.  C.  Rep.  582.    May  29,  1894. 
C.  C.  A.  5th  Cir.     Per  curiam. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  (1)  in  so  far  as  a  violation  of  section  4 
is  concerned,  and  (2)  in  so  far  as  it  held  the  Georgia  Railroad  Co.  subject  to 
the  act.  Commission's  order  held  invalid  in  so  far  as  it  condemned  as  unreason- 
able the  rate  to  Atlanta. 

Cincinnati,  New  Orleans  &  Texas  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission. 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission   r.  Cincinnati,   New  Orleans  &  Texas  Pacific 

Ry.  Co. 

162  IT.  S.  184.     March  30,  1896.     Shiras,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  (1)  in  so  far  as  it  held  the  rates  to 
Social  Circle  to  be  in  violation  of  section  4.  and  (2)  in  so  far  as  it  held  the 
Georgia  Railroad  Co.  to  be  subject  to  the  act.  Commission's  order  held  invalid 
in  so  far  as  it  condemned  as  unreasonable  the  rate  to  Atlanta.  It  was  further 
held  that  the  Commission  is  without  power  to  fix  rates. 


RAILROAD   COMMISSION    CASE. 

Railroad  Commission  of  Florida  v.  Savannah,  Florida  &  Western  Ry.  Co. 

5  I.  C.  C.  13.    October  29,  1891.  <  to 

5  I.  C.  C.  136.     February  9,  1892. 

Docket  No.  282.     Ops.  128  and  135.     By  the  Commission. 
Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  their  rates  on  oranges  ai 
lemons  from  Florida  to  New  York  City  and  other  eastern  points,  on  the  groui 
that  the  existing  rates  are  unreasonable.     Reparation  awarded. 

Florida  Fruit  Exchange  v.  Savanah,  Florida  &  Western  Ry.  Co. 

4  I.  C.  Rep.  400.     December  1,  1892. 
C.  C.  N.  D.  Fla.     Swayne,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid. 


13 

Savannah,  Florida  &  Western  Ry.  Co.  v.  Florida  Fruit  Exchange. 

4  I  C.  Rep.  589.    May  29,  1894. 
C.  C.  A.,  5th  Cir.     Per  curiam. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid. 

Savannah,  Florida  &  Western  Ry.  Co.  v.  Florida  Fruit  Exchange. 

167  U.  S.  512.    May  24,  1897.    Brewer,  J. 

Following  I.  C.  C.  v.  C.,  N.  O.  &  T.  P.  Ry.  Co.  (167  U.  S.,  479),  Commission's 
order  held  to  be  invalid,  on  the  ground  that  the  Commission  is  without  power 
to  fix  rates. 


RAWORTH    CASE. 

Raworth  v.  Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 
5  I.  C.  C.  234.    April  13,  1892. 

Docket  No.  240.     Op.  141.     Veazey,  Comr. 

Defendants  ordered  to  discontinue  their  practice  of  charging  higher  rate 
for  the  shorter  haul  to  Fargo,  N.  Dak.,  from  San  Francisco  on  sugar  than  for 
the  longer  haul  to  St.  Paul,  Minn.  It  was  held  that  the  higher  rate  to  Fargo 
constitutes  a  violation  of  section  4. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 
Not  reported. 

C.  C.  D.  N.  Dak. 

Suit  by  Commission  to  enforce  obedience  to  its  order,  discontinued  on  account 
of  adverse  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  other  cases  involving  section  4. 
(Senate  Hearings,  Committee  on  Interstate  Commerce,  1904-5,  vol.  5,  p.  330.) 


BRIMSON    CASE. 

In  re  Calumet  &  Blue  Island  Ry.  Co. 

Order  of  investigation  entered  June  20,  1892. 

Docket  No.  341.     (See  6th  Ann.  Rep.,  11.) 

During  this  investigation  by  the  Commission  into  the  operation  of  the  Calu- 
met &  Blue  Island  and  several  other  switching  roads  at  Chicago,  111.,  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  the  operation  thereof  resulted  in  an  undue 
preference  in  favor  of  the  Illinois  Steel  Co.,  W.  C.  Brimson  and  other  witnesses 
declined  to  answer  certain  questions  and  refused  to  produce  certain  documents, 
on  the  ground  that  they  might  tend  to  incriminate  themselves. 

In  re  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
53  Fed.  476.     December  7,  1892. 

C.  C.  N.  D.  111.     Gresham,  J. 

Application  by  Commission  for  an  order  compelling  witness  to  testify  and 
produce  documents  dismissed  on  ground  that  section  12,  in  so  far  as  it  assumes 
to  authorize  Federal  circuit  courts  to  make  orders  enforcing  subpoenas  issued 
by  the  Commission,  is  unconstitutional  as  imposing  on  judicial  tribunals  duties 
that  are  not  judicial  in  th^ir  nature.  In  the  judgment  of  the  court,  such  a 
proceeding  is  not  a  "  case  "  to  which  the  judicial  power  of  the  United  States 
extends. 


14 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Brimson. 

154  TJ.  S.  447.    May  26,  1894.    Harlan,  J. 

Lower  court  reversed,  Supreme  Court  holding  that  a  proceeding  to  compel 
the  attendance  of  a  witness  before  the  Commission,  or  to  compel  him  to  answer 
questions  or  produce  documents,  is  a  "  case  "  of  which  the  Federal  courts  have 
jurisdiction. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.- Brimson. 

155  TJ.  S.  3.    October  26,  1894. 
Dissenting  opinion  of  Justice  Brewer. 


HOPKINS   CASE. 

In  re  Alleged  Unlawful  Charges  for  Transportation  from  Chicago  to  Eastern 
Seaboard  Points  by  the  Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.,  and  other  Companies. 

Order  of  investigation  entered  June  24,  1892. 

Docket  No.  342.     (See  6th  Ann.  Rep.,  11.) 

During  the  investigation  by  the  Commission,  at  Chicago,  111.,  into  the  matter 
of  rebates,  Sumner  Hopkins  and  Henry  Walker  declined  to  answer  certain 
questions. 

In  re  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
53  Fed.  481.    December  7,  1892. 

C.  C.  N.  D.  111.     Gresham,  J. 

The  court  declined  to  order  the  witnesses  to  answer  the  questions,  on  the 
ground  that  the  court  proceeding  was  not  a  "case"  to  which  the  Federal 
judicial  power  extended.  Section  12  was  held  unconstitutional  in  so  far  as  it 
assumes  to  authorize  Federal  courts  to  make  orders  enforcing  subpoenas  issued 
by  the  Commission. 

NOTE. — In  the  companion  case  of  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Brim- 
son  (154  U.  S.,  447;  155  U.  S.,  3)  it  was  held  that  section  12  is  not  unconsti- 
tutional, and  that  such  a  proceeding  is  a  "  case "  of  which  the  Federal  courts 
have  jurisdiction. 


GEORGIA   COMMISSION    CASE. 

Trammel  v.  Clyde  Steamship  Co. 

Same  v.  Clyde  Steamship  Co. 

Same  v.  Ocean  Steamship  Co. 

Same  v.  Cincinnati,  New  Orleans  &  Texas  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 

Same  v.  Western  &  Atlantic  R.  R.  Co. 

Same  v.  South  Carolina  R.  R.  Co. 

Same  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 
5  I.  C'.  C.  324.    November  11,  1892. 

Docket  Nos.  314,  315,  316,  317,  324,  325,  326.    Op.  144.     Veazey,  Comr. 

Nos.  324  and  325  dismissed.  In  the  other  cases  carriers  ordered  to  cease 
charging  the  existing  rates  from  the  Atlantic  seaboard,  Cincinnati,  etc.,  which 
are  higher  for  the  shorter  haul  to  certain  Georgia  cities  than  for  the  longer  haul 
to  Atlanta,  Ga.,  and  other  points,  on  the  ground  that  the  existing  rates  are  in 
violation  of  section  4. 


15 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Western  &  Atlantic  R.  R.  Co. 
88  Fed.  186.    June  15,  1898. 

C.  C.  N.  D.  Ga.     Newman,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid,  on  the  ground  that  the  Commission 
erred  in  not  considering  competition  between  carriers  subject  to  the  act  as 
an  element  creating  a  dissimilarity  of  circumstances  that  justifies  the  existing 
rate  adjustment. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Clyde  Steamship  Co.    (two  cases). 
Same  v.  Ocean  Steamship  Co. 

Same  v.  Cincinnati,  New  Orleans  &  Texas  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 
Not  reported. 

C.  C.  N.  D.  Ga. 

These  companion  cases  were  discontinued  pending  final  determination  of 
I.  C.  C.  v.  W.  &  A.  R.  R.  Co,  (88  Fed.,  186.) 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Western  &  Atlantic  R.  R.  Co. 
Same  v.  Clyde  Steamship  Co. 
93  Fed.  83.    March  21,  1899. 

C.  C.  A.,  5th  Cir.     McCormick,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  stated  by  the  circuit 
court. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Clyde  Steamship  Co.   (two  cases). 
Same  v.  Western  &  Atlantic  R.  R.  Co. 

181  TJ.  S.  29.    April  8,  1901.    White,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid,  on  the  ground  that  the  Commission 
erred  in  not  considering  competition  between  carriers  subject  to  the  act  as  an 
element  creating  dissimilarity  of  circumstances  that  justifies  the  existing  rate 
adjustment. 


PENN    EEFINING    CASE. 

Independent  Refiners'  Asso.  of  Titusville  v.  Western  New  York  &  Pennsylvania 
R.  R.  Co. 

5  I,  C.  C.  415.    November  14,  1892.     (See  6th  Ann.  Rep.,  18.) 
Docket  Nos.  153,  154,  163.     Op.  145.     McDill,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  cease  charging  an  additional  sum  for  the  transportation 
of  the  barrel  in  connection  with  the  shipment  of  oil  in  barrels  while  imposing 
no  additional  charge  for  the  transportation  of  the  tank  in  connection  with  the 
shipment  of  oil  in  tanks,  or  else  furnish  tank  cars  to  all  shippers  applying 
therefor,  on  the  ground  that  the  existing  practice  constitutes  an  undue  preju- 
dice. Reparation  to  be  awarded. 

Independent  Refiners'  Asso.  of  Titusville  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co. 

6  I.  C.  C.  52.    October  19,  1893. 

Docket  No.  163.     Op.  160.     By  the  Commission. 
Rehearing  granted  to  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co. 

Independent  Refiners'  Asso.  of  Titusville  v.  Western  New  York  &  Pennsylvania 

R.  R.  Co. 

61.  C.  C.  378.    October  22,  1895.     ( See  9th  Ann.  Rep.,  33. ) 

Docket  Nos.  153,  154.     Op.  178.    By  the  Commission. 

Reparation  awarded  to  shippers  paying  the  additional  charge  on  barrel-oil 
shipments. 


16 

Independent  Refiners'  Asso.  of  Titusville  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co. 
6  I.  C.  C.  449.     October  22,  1895.     By  the  Commission. 

Docket  No.  163.     Op.  178. 

Upon  rehearing  it  was  determined  that  claimants  not  having  proved  their 
individual  claims,  suit  should  be  brought  by  them  under  section  16  for  enforce- 
ment of  Commission's  order  defining  basis  of  reparation. 

Interstate    Commerce    Commission    v.    Western    New    York    &    Pennsylvania 

R.  R.  Co. 

82  Fed.  192.    July  3,  1897. 

C.  C.  W.  D.  Pa.     Acheson,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid.  Carriers  ordered  to  obey  such  order, 
except  that  part  of  the  order  which  awarded  pecuniary  reparation,  the  court 
holding  that  an  equity  court  has  no  jurisdiction  of  the  reparation  feature,  the 
proper  tribunal  being  a  law  court. 

Penn  Refining  Co.  v.  Western  New  York  &  Pennsylvania  R.  R,  Co. 
Not  reported.     February  12,  1903. 

C.  C.  W.  D.  Pa. 

Damages  awarded  to  shippers  in  two  statutory  law  actions,  based  on  Com- 
mission's award. 

Western  New  York  &  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Penn  Refining  Co. 
137  Fed.  343.     May  1,  1905. 

C.  C.  A.,  3d  Cir.     Bradford,  J. 

Judgments  in  favor  of  shippers  reversed  on  the  ground,  among  others,  that 
the  mere  opinions  of  the  Commission  are  inadmissible  in  evidence  in  actions 
for  enforcement  of  awards  of  reparation,  the  court  holding  that  the  "  findings  " 
of  the  Commission  made  prima  facie  evidence  by  the  law  are  those  findings  so 
prepared  and  arranged  in  the  Commission's  reports  that  they  can  be  offered  in 
evidence  unaccompanied  by  extraneous  or  incompetent  legal  arguments,  opin- 
ions, or  conclusions. 

Penn  Refining  Co.  v.  Western  New  York  &  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co. 

208  U.  S.  208.    January  27,  1908.     Peckham,  J. 

Judgment  of  court  of  appeals,  denying  pecuniary  reparation,  affirmed  on  the 
ground  that  barrel-oil  shippers  who  had  not  demanded  tank  cars  can  not  be 
said  to  have  been  discriminated  against;  that  there  is  no  showing  that  the 
barrel-oil  shippers  had  demanded  tank  cars;  and  that,  therefore,  they  are 
not  entitled  to  pecuniary  reparation  for  the  amounts  paid  by  them  on  the 
barrels. 


SPOKANE    CASE. 

Merchants'  Union  of  Spokane  Falls  v.  Northern  Pacific  R.  R.  Co. 
5  I.  C.  C.  478.    November  28,  1892.     (See  6th  Ann.  Rep.,  14.) 

Docket  No.  189.     Op.  147.     Knapp,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  cease  charging  the  existing  class  rates  on  mixed  carload 
lots  at  carload  rates  from  the  east,  which  are  higher  for  the  shorter  haul  to 
Spokane,  Wash.,  than  for  the  longer  haul  to  Pacific  coast  points,  on  the  ground 
that  such  rates  are  unreasonable  and  in  violation  of  section  4  to  the  extent  that 
they  exceed  the  rates  prescribed  by  the  Commission.  As  to  commodity  rates 
competition  found  to  justify  difference. 


\1 

Farmers'  Loan  &  Trust  Co.  v.  Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 
83  Fed.  249.     October  16,  1897. 

O.  C.  D.  Wash.,  N.  D.     Hanford,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  (1)  on  the  ground  that  the  Commission 
Is  without  power  to  fix  rates  and  (2)  on  the  ground  that  the  order  is  too 
Indefinite.  No  appeal. 


MINNEAPOLIS    GRAIN    CASE. 

Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Minneapolis  v.  Great  Northern  Ry.  Co. 
5  I.  C.  C.  571.    January  3,  1893.     (See  7th  Ann.  Rep.,  21.) 

Docket  No.  329.     Op.  150.     McDill,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  cease  charging  the. existing  rates  on  wheat  from  North 
and  South  Dakota  to  Minneapolis,  Minn.,  on  the  ground  that  such  rates  are 
unduly  prejudicial  as  compared  with  rates  to  Duluth  and  other  Lake  ports. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Ry.  Co. 
Not  reported. 

C.  C.,  D.  Minn. 

This  case  was  discontinued,  the  carriers  having  complied  with  the  Commis- 
sion's order  as  modified  in  accordance  with  the  request  of  both  carriers  and 
shippers.  (Senate  hearings,  Committee  on  Interstate  Commerce,  1904-5,  vol. 
5,  p.  313.) 


CHATTANOOGA  BOARD  OF  TRADE  CASE. 

Board  of  Trade  of  Chattanooga  v.  East  Tennessee,  Virginia  &  Georgia  Ry.  Co. 
5  I.  C.  C.  546.  December  30,  1892. 

Docket  No.  259.     Op.  151.     Knapp,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  cease  charging  the  existing  rates  from  the  Atlantic  sea- 
board, which  are  higher  for  the  shorter  haul  to  Chattanooga,  Tenn.,  than  for  the 
longer  haul  to  Nashville,  Tenn.,  on  the  ground  that  the  existing  rates  are  in 
violation  of  section  4. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  East  Tennessee,  Virginia  &  Georgia  Ry.  Co. 
85  Fed.  107.  February  2,  1898. 

C.  C.,  E.  D.  Tenn.,  S.  D.     Severens,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  on  ground  that  facts  show  a  violation  of 
sections  3  and  4. 

East  Tennessee,  Virginia  &  Georgia  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
99  Fed.  52.  November  13,  1899. 

C.  C.  A.,  6th  Cir.     Taft,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  on  ground  that  facts  show  a  violation  of 
sections  3  and  4. 

East  Tennessee,  Virginia  &  Georgia  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

181  U.  S.  1.    April  8,  1901.    White,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  ground  that  Commission  erred  in  not 
considering  competition  between  carriers  subject  to  the  act  as  an  element  cre- 
ating dissimilarity  of  circumstances  that  justifies  the  existing  rate  adjustment. 
58069—14 2 


18 

Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Chattanooga  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co. 
10  I.  C.  C.  111.     March  12,  1904.     (See  18th  Ann.  Rep.,  55.) 

Docket  No.  613.     Op.  301.     Knapp,  Comr. 

Following  ruling  of  Supreme  Court,  held  that  the  facts  do  not  show  a  viola- 
tion of  the  act  on  the  ground  that  competition  between  carriers  subject  to  the 
act  justifies  the  existing  rate  adjustment. 


MIDDLESBOEOUGH  BEEB  CASE. 

Gerke  Brewing  Co.  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 
5  I.  C.  C.  596.    February  28,  1893. 

Docket  No.  311.     Op.  152.     Veazey,  Comr. 

On  beer  from  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  defendant  carriers  ordered  to  discontinue 
their  practice  of  charging  a  higher  rate  for  the  shorter  haul  to  Middlesborough, 
Ky.,  than  for  the  longer  haul  to  Lynchburg,  Va.  It  was  held  that  the  higher 
rate  to  Middlesborough  constitutes  a  violation  of  section  4. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  Ohio. 

Suit  by  Commission  to  enforce  obedience  to  its  order  discontinued  on  account 
of  adverse  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  other  cases  involving  section  4. 
( Senate  Hearings,  Committee  on  Interstate  Commerce,  1904-5;  vol.  5,  p.  330. ) 


TBOY  CASE. 

Board  of  Trade  of  Troy  v.  Alabama  Midland  Ry.  Co. 
6  I.  C.  C.  1.    August  15,  1893. 

Docket  No.  347.    Op.  158.    Clements,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  the  existing  class  rates  and 
rates  on  cotton  and  phosphate  rock  from  and  to  eastern  and  northeastern  points, 
which  are  higher  for  the  shorter  haul  to  and  from  Troy,  Ala.,  than  for  the 
longer  haul  to  and  from  various  points,  on  the  ground  that  the  existing  rates 
are  in  violation  of  section  4. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Alabama  Midland  Ry.  Co. 
69  Fed.  227.     July  9,  1895. 

C.  C.,  M.  D.  Ala.     Bruce,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  water  competition 
and  competition  between  carriers  subject  to  the  act  justifies  the  existing  rate 
adjustment. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Alabama  Midland  Ry.  Co. 
74  Fed.  715.     June  2,  1896. 

C.  C.  A.,  5th  Cir.     McCormick,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  stated  by  the  circuit 
court. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Alabama  Midland  Ry.  Co. 

168  U.  S.  144.    November  8,  1897.    Shiras,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  there  is  no  violation 
of  sections  3  and  4  on  account  of  water  competition  and  competition  of  carriers 
subject  to  the  act,  and  further  on  the  ground  that  the  Commission  is  without 
power  to  fix  rates. 


19 

WINDOW   SHADES   CASE. 

Page  v.  Delaware,  Lacka wanna  &  Western  R.  R.  Co. 

6  I.  C.  C.  148.    March  23,  1894.     (See  8th  Ann.  Rep.,  30.) 

Docket  No.  363.    Op.  166.    Veazey,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  cease  charging  a  higher  rate  on  window  shades  than  on 
window  hollands  and  shade  cloth,  on  the  ground  that  the  existing  classification 
is  unreasonable. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Delaware,  Lackawanna  &  Western  R.  R.  Co. 
64  Fed.  723.  December  3,  1894. 

C.  C.,  N.  D.  N.  Y.     Wallace,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  the  Commission 
erred  in  ignoring  the  element  of  value  in  fixing  the  same  rate  on  all  articles  of 
a  certain  kind,  some  of  which  are  worth  $3  and  others  $10,  thus  denying  to  the 
carrier  remuneration  for  the  additional  risk  in  the  case  of  articles  of  the  greater 
value. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Delaware,  Lackawanna  &  Western  R.  R.  Co. 
64  Fed.  723.  December  3,  1894. 

C.  C.,  N.  D.  N.  Y.     Wallace,  J. 

Upon  a  certificate  from  the  Commission  stating,  in  substance,  that  the  Com- 
mission did  not  intend  to  make  its  order  as  broad  as  its  terms  import,  a  rehear- 
ing was  denied  on  the  ground  that  the  court  can  not  substitute  for  an  order 
actually  made  such  an  order  as  the  Commission  might  or  should  make  or  such 
an  order  as  the  Commission  intended  to  make.  No  appeal. 

• 
Page  v.  Delaware,  Lackawanna  &  Western  R.  R.  Co. 

6  I.  C.  C.  548.    March  4,  1896.     (See  10th  Ann.  Rep.,  69.) 

Docket  No.  363.     Op.  184.    By  the  Commission. 

Upon  rehearing,  the  Commission  entered  a  new  order  containing  the  same 
general  requirements,  but  with  a  proviso  permitting  the  carriers  to  restrict  the 
application  of  the  reduced  rate  to  window  shades  of  a  certain  value.  Subse- 
quently the  original  order  was  substantially  complied  with  by  the  lines  directly 
interested.  (Senate  Hearings,  Committee  on  Interstate  Commerce,  1904-5,  vol. 
5,  p.  315.) 


MAXIMUM-KATE   CASE. 

t 

Freight  Bureau  of  Cincinnati  Chamber  of  Commerce  v.  Cincinnati,  New  Orleans 

&  Texas  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 

Chicago  Freight  Bureau  v.  Louisville,  New  Albany  &  Chicago  Ry.  Co. 
6  I.  C.  C.  195.    May  29,  1894. 

Docket  Nos.  322,  323.    Op.  168.    Clements,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  their  rates  on  manufactured 
articles  from  Chicago,  111.,  and  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  to  southern  territory  on  the 
ground  that  such  rates  are  unduly  prejudicial  as  compared  with  rates  on  like 
traffic  from  the  east. 

Shinkle,  Wilson  &  Kreis  Co.  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 
Not  reported. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  Ohio,  W.  D.    Taft,  J. 

Temporary  restraining  order  compelling  carriers  to  comply  with  Commission's 
order  granted.  (Senate  Hearings,  Committee  on  Interstate  Commerce,  1904-5, 
vol.  5,  p.  315.) 


20 

Shinkle,  Wilson  &  Kreis  Co.  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 
62  Fed.  690.    July  30,  1894. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  Ohio,  W.  D.     Lurton,  J. 

Temporary  injunction  compelling  carriers  to  comply  with  Commission's 
order  until  final  determination  of  the  case,  denied.  Temporary  restraining 
order  vacated. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Cincinnati,  New  Orleans  &  Texas  Pacific 

Ry.  Co. 

64  Fed.  981.     November  30,  1894. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  Ohio,  W.  D.     Sage,  J. 

Temporary  restraining  order  compelling  carriers  to  comply  with  Commis- 
Bion's  order  pending  determination  of  the  case,  denied. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Cincinnati,  New  Orleans  &  Texas  Pacific 

Ry.  Co. 

76  Fed.  183.    October  8,  1896. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  Ohio,  W.  D.     Sage,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  the  Commission 
Is  without  power  to  fix  rates. 

Shinkle,  Wilson  &  Kreis  Co.  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 
76  Fed.  1007.     October  8,  1896. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  Ohio,  W.  D.     Sage,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  the  Commission 
is  without  power  to  fix  rates. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Cincinnati.  New  Orleans  &  Texas  Pacific 
Ry.  Co. 

C.  C.  A.  6th  Cir. 
The  case,  undecided,  was  certified  to  the  Supreme  Court. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Cincinnati,  New  Orleans  &  Texas  Pacific 

Ry  Co. 

167  IT.  S.  479.    May  24,  1897.    Brewer,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  the  Commission 
is  without  power  to  fix  rates. 


STJMMERVILLE    HAY    CASE. 

Behlmer  v.  Memphis  &  Charleston  R.  R.  Co. 

6  I.  C.  C.  257.    June  27,  1894.     (See  8th  Ann.  Rep.,  18.) 

Docket  No.  362.     Op.  169.     Yeomans,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  cease  charging  their  existing  rates  on  hay  and  other 
articles,  which  are  higher  for  the  shorter  haul  to  Summerville,  S.  C.,  than  for 
the  longer  haul  to  Charleston,  S.  C.,  from  Memphis,  Tenn.,  on  the  ground  that 
such  rates  are  in  violation  of  section  4. 

Behlmer  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 
71  Fed.  835.     January  22,  1896. 

C.  C.  D.  S.  C.     Simonton,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  competition  be- 
tween railroads  subject  to  the  act  justifies  the  existing  rate  adjustment. 


21 

Behlmer  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  E.  R.  Co. 
83  Fed.  898.    November  3,  1897. 

C.  C.  A.  4th  Cir.     Goff,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  on  the  ground  that  the  facts  showed  a 
violation  of  section  4. 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Behlmer. 

169  TJ.  S.  644.    March  28,  1898.     Puller,  J. 

Held  that  appeal  to  Supreme  Court  operates  as  a  supersedeas  and  staya 
execution  of  decree  of  circuit  court  of  appeals. 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Behlmer. 

175  TJ.  S.  648.    January  8,  1900.    White,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  the  Commission 
erred  in  not  considering  competition  of  railroads  subject  to  the  act  as  an  ele- 
ment justifying  the  existing  rate  adjustment. 


CHARLESTON   TRUCK  FARMERS'  CASE. 

Truck  Farmers'  Asso.  of  Charleston  v.  Northeastern  R.  R.  Co.  of  South  Caro- 
lina. 

6  I.  C.  C.  295.    April  6,  1895.     (See  9th  Ann.  Rep.,  32.) 
Docket  No.  364.     Op.  174.     Clements,  Comr. 
Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  their  rates  on  strawberries 

and  certain  vegetables  from  Charleston,  S.  C.,  to  northeastern  markets,  on  the 

ground  that  the  existing  rates  are  unreasonable. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Northeastern  R.  R.  Co.  of  South  Carolina. 
74  Fed.  70.  April  30,  1896. 

C.  C.  D.  S.  C.     Sirnonton,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  the  Commission  Is 
without  power  to  fix  rates. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Northeastern  R.  R.  Co.  of  South  Carolina. 
83  Fed.  611.  November  3,  1897. 

C.  C.  A.  4th  Cir.     Goff,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  ground  that  Commission  is  without 
power  to  fix  rates.  No  appeal. 


IRON    RATE    CASE. 

Colorado  Fuel  &  Iron  Co.  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 

6  I.  C.  C.  488.    November  25.  1895.     (See  9th  Ann.  Rep.,  40.) 

Docket  No.  402.     Op.  181.     Clements,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specific  amount  their  rates  on  iron  and  steel 
products  from  Pueblo,  Colo.,  to  San  Francisco,  Gal.,  on  the  ground  that  the 
existing  rates  are  unreasonable  and  unduly  prejudicial.  Damages  denied  for 
want  of  proof. 


22 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 
74  Fed.  42.     May  12,  1896. 

C.  C.  D..  Colo.    Hallett,  J. 

Held  that  this  suit  to  enforce  Commission's  order  was  brought  in  the  proper 
Federal  district  court  and  that  the  court  has  jurisdiction  to  determine  the  case. 

Colorado  Fuel  &  Iron  Co.  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 

Not  reported.     1899. 
C.  C.  D.  Colo. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid.    Award  of  damages  to  shippers  denied. 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  Colorado  Fuel  &  Iron  Co. 
Colorado  Fuel  &  Iron  Co.  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 
101  Fed.  779.    April  16,  1900. 

C.  C.  A.  8th  Cir.    Thayer,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  the  Commission  Is 
without  power  to  fix  rates. 

Colorado  Fuel  &  Iron  Co.  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 

22  Sup.  Ct.  934;  46  I.  Ed.  1264.     November  8,  1901.     Memorandum. 
Not  in  U.  S.  Reports. 
Dismissed  per  stipulation. 


MANDAMUS    CASE. 

United  States  ex  rel.  Morrison  v.  Long  Island  R.  R.  Co. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  N.  Y.   (1896). 

Petition  for   mandamus  to   compel   carriers  to  file  reports,  transferred   to 
Commerce  Court.     ( See  10th  Ann.  Rep.,  49. ) 

United  States  ex  rel.  Morrison  v.  Long  Island  R.  R.  Co. 

Not  reported.    April  3,  1911. 
Commerce  Court  No.  26. 
Case  dismissed  without  opinion. 


PIEDMONT  CASE. 

McClelen  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co. 

6  I.  C.  C.  588.    June  6,  1896.     (See  10th  Ann.  Rep.,  74.) 

Docket  Nos.  404  and  405.    Op.  187.    Yeomans,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  cease  charging  the  existing  rates  from  North  Atlantic 
ports,  which  are  higher  for  the  shorter  haul  to  Piedmont,  Ala.,  than  for  the 
longer  haul  to  Anniston,  Ala.,  on  the  ground  that  the  existing  rates  are  in 
violation  of  section  4. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co. 
105  Fed.  703.    November  3,  1900. 

C.  C.  N.  D.  Ala.,  S.  D.     Bruce,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  the  Commission 
erred  in  not  considering  competition  between  railroads  subject  to  the  act  as  an 
element  justifying  the  existing  rate  adjustment. 


23 

MANDAMUS    CASE. 

U.  S.  ex  rel.  I.  C.  C.  v.  Chicago,  Kalamazoo  &  Saginaw  R.  R.  Co. 
81  Fed.  783.     June  23,  1897. 

C.  C.  W.  D.  Mich.,  S.  D.     Severens,  J. 

Petition  for  mandamus  to  compel  respondent  railroad  lying  wholly  within 
State  and  transporting  traffic  only  on  local  bills  of  lading  to  file  annual  reports 
as  provided  for  in  section  20,  denied. 


GRIFFEN  CASE. 

Brewer  &  Hanleiter  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 

7  I.  C.  C.  224.    June  29,  1897.     (See  llth  Ann.  Rep.,  105.) 

Docket  No.  467.     Op.  205.     Prouty,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  cease  charging  the  existing  rates  from  Cincinnati,  Ohio, 
and  Louisville,  Ky.,  which  are  higher  for  the  shorter  haul  to  Griffen,  Ga.,  than 
for  the  longer  haul  to  Macon,  Ga.,  on  the  ground  that  the  existing  rates  are  in 
violation  of  sections  3  and  4. 

Brewer  &  Hanleiter  v.  Central  of  Georgia  Ry.  Co. 
84  Fed.  258.     January  8,  1898. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  Ga.,  E.  D.     Speer,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  competition  justifies 
the  existing  rate  adjustment.  No  appeal. 


MANDAMUS. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Bellaire,  Zanesville  &  Cincinnati  Ry.  Co. 
77  Fed.  942.    January  11,  1897. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  Ohio,  E.  D.     Sage,  J. 

Petition  of  Commission  for  writ  of  mandamus  to  compel  defendant  to  file 
tariffs  with  Commission,  dismissed  on  the  ground  that  defendant  is  not  subject 
to  the  act.  Defendant  was  a  railroad  company,  whose  line  was  wholly  within  a 
single  State,  which  carried  goods  destined  to  other  States,  but  which  did  not 
issue  bills  of  lading  beyond  its  own  line ;  did  not  receive  goods  on  through  bills 
of  lading,  and  did  not  have  any  arrangement  with  other  roads  for  a  division  of 
charges  or  for  a  common  control  or  management. 


MANDAMUS   CASE. 

U.  S.  ex  rel.  I.  C.  C.  v.  Seaboard  Ry.  Co. 
82  Fed.  563.    July  2,  1897. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  Ala.     Toulmin,  J. 

Petition  for  mandamus  to  compel  railroad  to  file  annual  reports  as  provided 
for  in  section  20  granted  where  railroad  lying  wholly  within  state  was  found 
to  participate  in  interstate  commerce  under  "  common  arrangement  for  a  con- 
tinuous carriage  or  shipment." 


U.  S.  ex  rel.  I.  C.  C.  v.  Seaboard  Ry.  Co. 
85  Fed.  955.     March  9,  1898. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  Ala.     Toulmin,  J. 

Motion  to  commit  as  for  contempt  by  Robert  Middleton,  formerly  secretary 
and  treasurer  of  respondent  railway,  denied. 


LA  GRANGE   CASE. 

Galloway  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 

7  I.  C.  C.  431.    December  31,  1897.     (See  12th  Ann.  Rep.,  32,  38.) 

Docket  No.  431.    Op.  215.     Clements,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  cease  charging  the  existing  rates  from  New  Orleans,  La., 
which  are  higher  for  the  shorter  haul  to  La  Grange,  Ga.,  than  for  the  longer 
haul  to  other  Georgia  cities,  on  the  ground  that  the  existing  rates  are  in  viola- 
tion of  sections  1,  3,  and  4. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 

102  Fed.  709.     December  2,  1899. 
C.  C.  S.  D.  Ala.    Toulmin,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 
101  Fed.  146.     December  12,  1899. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  Ala.    Toulmin,  «7. 

Injunction  compelling  compliance  with  Commission's  order  suspended  pending 
appeal. 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

108  Fed.  988.     May  14,  1901. 
C.  C.  A,  5th  Cir.     Per  curiam. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 

190  U.  S.  273.     May  18,  1903.    White,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  competition  be- 
tween carriers  subject  to  the  act  justifies  the  existing  rate  adjustment. 


ST.   CLOUD   CASE. 

> 

Tileston  Milling  Co.  v.  Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 
City  of  St.  Cloud  v.  Same. 

8  I.  C.  C.  346.     November  29,  1899. 

Docket  Nos.  556  and  558.     Op.  242.     Prouty,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  cease  charging  higher  rates  from  various  points  for  the 
shorter  haul  to  St.  Cloud,  Minn.,  than  for  the  longer  haul  to  St.  Paul,  Minn., 
on  the  ground  that  this  practice  constitutes  a  violation  of  section  4. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 
Not  reported. 

C.  C.  D.  Minn. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid,  carriers  consenting  to  issuance  of  in- 
junction enforcing  compliance  with  such  order.  (Senate  Hearings,  Committee 
on  Interstate  Commerce,  1904-5,  vol.  5,  p.  324-325.) 


DANVILLE   CASE. 

City  of  Danville  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co. 

8  I.  C.  C.  409.    February  17,  1900.     (See  14th  Ann.  Rep.,  34.) 
8  I.  C.  C.  571.     Rehearing  November  17,  1900. 
Docket  No.  549.     Ops.  247,  252.     Prouty,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  cease  charging  the  existing  rates  from  St.  Louis,  Mo., 
and  other  points,  which  are  higher  for  the  shorter  haul  to  Danville,  Va.,  than 
for  the  longer  haul  to  Lynchburg  and  other  Viriginia  cities,  on  the  ground  that 
such  rates  are  in  violation  of  sections  3  and  4. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.   Southern  Ry.  Co. 
117  Fed.  741.     August  4,  1902. 

C.   C.  W.  D.   Va.     McDowell,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  competition  justifies 
the  existing  rate  adjustment. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co. 
122  Fed.  800.    May  5,  1903. 

C.  C.  A.  4th  Cir.     Boyd,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  competition  justifies 
the  existing  rate  adjustment.  Appeal  to  Supreme  Court  taken  but  not  per- 
fected, carriers  substantially  complying  with  Commission's  order. 


KEARNEY   CASE. 

Gustin  v.  Burlington  &  Missouri  River  R.  R.  in  Nebraska. 
8  I.  C.  C.  481.    March  9,  1900.     (See  14th  Ann.  Rep.,  41.) 

Docket  No.  280.     Op.  248.     Yeomans,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  discontinue  charging  a  rate  of  77  cents  per  100  pounds  on 
sugar  from  San  Francisco,  Cal.,  to  Kearney,  Nebr.,  while  maintaining  a  rate  of 
50  cents  per  100  pounds  for  the  longer  haul  to  Omaha,  Nebr.,  on  the  ground 
that  the  existing  rate  is  unreasonable.  Commission  recommended  that  rate  to 
Kearney  be  reduced  to  not  exceed  65  cents. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.   Southern  Pacific  Co. 
Not  reported. 

C.  C.  N.  D.  Cal. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  competition  justified 
the  existing  rate  adjustment.  (Senate  Hearings,  Committee  on  Interstate  Com- 
merce, 1904-5,  vol.  5,  p.  326-327.) 


HAMPTON    CASE. 

Board  of  Trade  of  Hampton  v.  Nashville,  Chattanooga  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. 
8  I.  C.  C.  503.    March  10,  1900.     (See  14th  Ann.  Rep.,  40.) 

Docket  No.  471.     Op.  249.     Clements,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  discontinue  \he  existing  rates  from  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  and 
other  points,  which  are  considerably  higher  for  the  shorter  haul  to  Hampton, 
Fla.,  than  for  the  longer  haul  to  Palatka  (the  rates  to  Hampton  being  based 
on  the  through  rate  to  Palatka  plus  the  local  rate  back  to  Hampton),  on  the 
ground  that  the  existing  rates  are  in  violation  of  sections  3  and  4. 


26 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v .  Nashville,  Chattanooga  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. 
C.  C.,  S.  D.,  Fla. 

Not  reported.     (See  16th  Ann.  Rep.,  52.) 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Nashville,  Chattanooga  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. 
120  Fed.  934.  February  24,  1903. 

C.  C.  A.,  5th  Cir.     Pardee,  J. 

Commission's  order  'held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  competition  justifies 
the  existing  rate  adjustment. 


.      WILMINGTON    CASE. 

Wilmington  Tariff  Asso.  v.  Cincinnati,  Portsmouth  &  Virginia  R.  R.  Co. 
9  I.  C.  C.  118.    December  17,  1901.     (See  15th  Ann.  Rep.,  28.) 

Docket  No.  544.    Op.  264.     Clements,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  cease  charging  the  existing  rates  from  Chicago,  111.,  and 
other  points,  which  are  considerably  higher  to  Wilmington,  N.  C.,  than  to  Nor- 
folk and  Richmond,  Va.,  on  the  ground  that  the  existing  rates  are  unduly 
prejudicial  to  Wilmington. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Cincinnati,  Portsmouth  &  Virginia  R.  R.  Co. 
124  Fed.  624.  August  10,  1903. 

C.  C.  E.  D.  N.  C.     Purnell,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  competition  justifies 
the  existing  rate  adjustment. 


TIFTON    CASE. 

Mayor  &  Council  of  Tifton  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 
9  I.  C.  C.  160.     March  27,  1902.     (See  16th  Ann.  Rep.,  39.) 

Docket  No.  579.     Op.  265.     Clements,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  cease  charging  higher  rates  from  New  York  City  and 
other  points  for  the  shorter  haul  to  Tifton,  Ga.,  than  for  the  longer  haul  to 
Valdosta  and  Albany,  Ga.,  on  the  ground  that  such  practice  constituted  a 
violation  of  sections  3  and  4. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 
Not  reported. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  Ga. 

Suit  to  compel  obedience  to  Commission's  order  discontinued  upon  substantial 
compliance  with  order  by  carriers.  (Senate  Hearings,  Committee  on  Interstate 
Commerce,  1904-5,  vol.  5,  p.  327-328.) 


ORANGE    ROUTING    CASE. 

Consolidated  Forwarding  Co.  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 
Southern  California  Fruit  Exchange  v.  Same. 

9  I.  C.  C.  182.    April  19,  1902.     (See  16th  Ann.  Rep.,  22.) 

Docket  Nos.  575  and  576.     Op.  269.     Clements,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  discontinue  a  rule  or  practice  whereby  the  initial  carriers 
reserved  to  themselves  the  right  of  routing  beyond  their  own  lines  shipments 
of  oranges  and  other  citrus  fruits  from  California  to  the  East,  and  whereby 
the  shippers  were  denied  their  choice  of  established  routes  on  the  ground  that 
the  rule  or  practice  is  in  violation  of  section  3. 


Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 

123  Fed.  597.     June  1,  1903. 
C.  C.  S.  D.  Cal.,  S.  D.     Wellborn,  J. 
Bill  to  enforce  Commission's  order  held  to  be  sufficient  upon  demurrer. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 
132  Fed.  829.     September  6,  1904. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  Cal.,  S.  D.     Wellborn,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  on  the  ground  that  the  reservation  of 
the  right  of  routing  created  a  traffic  pool  in  violation  of  section  5. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 
137  Fed.  606.    December  12,  1904. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  Cal.,  S.  D.     Wellborn,  <7. 

Carriers'  motion  to  suspend  operation  of  decree  compelling  compliance  with 
Commission's  order  pending  appeal  denied. 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
Southern  California  Ry.  Co.  v.  Same. 
Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  Same. 
Santa  Fe  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Same. 

200  IT.  S.  536.    February  26,  1906.    Peckham,  /. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  the  reservation  of 
the  right  of  routing  to  the  initial  carriers  is  not  prohibited  by  the  act.  . 


HAY  CLASSIFICATION  CASE. 

National  Hay  Asso.  v.  Lake  Shore  &  Michigan  Southern  Ry.  Co. 
9  I.  C.  C.  264.    October  16,  1902.     (See  16th  Ann.  Rep.,  36.) 

Docket  No.  603.     Op.  272.     Clements.  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  discontinue  charging  higher  than  sixth-class  rates  on 
hay  in  official  classification  territory  on  ground  that  an  advance  to  fifth-class 
is  unreasonable,  discriminatory,  and  prejudicial. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Lake  Shore  &  Michigan  Southern  Ry.  Co. 
134  Fed.  942.    January  27,  1905. 

C.  C.  N.  D.  Ohio,  E.  D.     Wing,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  invalid  on  the  ground  that  it  fixed  a  rate  for  the 
future. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Lake  Shore  &  Michigan  Southern,  Ry.  Co. 

202  TJ.  S.  613.    May  21,  1906.    Per  curiam. 

Commission's  order  held  invalid.  Decree  of  lower  court  affirmed  by  divided 
court,  there  being  no  written  opinion. 

National  Hay  Asso.  v.  Michigan  Central  R.  R.  Co. 
19  I.  C.  34.    June  10,  1910. 

Docket  No.  1179.     Op.  1334.     Cockrell,  Comr. 

Upon  a  new  complaint  filed  under  the  Hepburn  Act,  authorizing  the  Com- 
mission to  fix  rates  for  the  future,  held  that  the  advance  of  hay  to  fifth  class 
is  not  unreasonable  in  view  of  the  now  existing  circumstances  and  conditions. 
Complaint  dismissed. 


28 

BAIBD  CASE. 

Hearst  v.  Philadelphia  &  Reading  Ry.  Co. 

Complaint  filed  November  3,  1902.     (See  17th  Ann.  Rep.,  75.) 

Docket  No.  644. 

During  an  investigation  by  the  Commission  into  the  question  of  alleged 
unlawful  practices  in  connection  with  the  carriage  'of  anthracite  coal  from 
Pennsylvania  to  New  York  and  other  eastern  points,  several  witnesses  declined 
to  answer  certain  questions  or  to  produce  certain  documents. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Philadelphia  &  Reading  Ry.  Co. 
123  Fed.  969.     June  12,  1903. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  N.  Y.     Lacombe,  J. 

The  court  declined  to  order  the  witnesses  to  answer  the  questions  or  yroduce 
the  documents  on  the  ground  that  they  were  not  relevant  to  the  matter  under 
investigation. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Baird. 

194  U.  S.  25.    April  4,  1904.    Day,  J. 

Witnesses  directed  to  answer  the  questions  and  produce  the  documents  on  the 
ground  that  they  were  relevant  to  the  matter  under  investigation. 


SOAP  CLASSIFICATION  CASE. 

Procter  &  Gamble  Co.  v.  Cincinnati,  Hamilton  &  Dayton  Ry.  Co. 
9  I.  C.  C.  440.    April  10,  1903.     (See  17th  Ann.  Rep.,  57.) 

Docket  No.  573.    Op.  277.    Knapp,  Comr. 

Defendants  ordered  to  discontinue  their  practice  of  charging  higher  than 
fourth-class  rates  on  less-than-carload  shipments  of  common  soap.  An  advance 
to  third  class  or  to  20  per  cent  less  than  third  class  was  held  to  be  unreasonable. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Cincinnati,  Hamilton  &  Dayton  Ry.  Co. 

146  Fed.  559.    November  22,  1905. 
C.  C.  S.  D.  Ohio,  W.  D.    Thompson,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid.    Carriers  directed  to  comply  therewith. 

Cincinnati,  Hamilton  &  Dayton  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

206  TJ.  S.  142.    May  13,  1907.    White,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid.    Carriers  directed  to  comply  therewith. 


CHESAPEAKE  &  OHIO  COAL  CASE. 

In  re  Alleged  Unlawful  Rates  Charged  by  the  Chesapeake  &  Ohio  Ry.  Co.  on 
Coal  from  West  Virginia  Mines  to  New  Haven,  Conn.,  and  other  points  in 
New  England. 

Order  of  investigation  entered  July  1,  1903.     ( See  17th  Ann.  Rep.,  68. ) 
Docket  No.  703. 

Investigation  by  Commission  into  legality  of  a  contract  whereby  the  Chesa- 
peake &  Ohio  Railway  Co.  agreed  to  sell  and  deliver  to  the  New  York,  New 
Haven  &  Hartford  Railroad  Co.  a  certain  quantity  of  coal,  which  was  to  be 
transported  over  the  lines  of  the  vendor  carrier.  The  price  to  be  paid  by  the 


29 

vendee  carrier  was  less  than  the  cost,  to  the  vendor  carrier,  of  buying  the  coal 
at  the  mines,  paying  its  own  published  rates  and  meeting  other  expenses  in- 
curred in  delivery.  Through  the  Department  of  Justice,  the  Commission  filed  a 
bill  to  enjoin  the  carriers  from  executing  the  contract  on  the  ground  that  it  was 
in  violation  of  sections  2  and  3  of  the  act. 

United  States  ex  rel.     Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Chesapeake  &  Ohio 

Ry.  Co. 

128  Fed.  59.     February  19,  1904. 

C.  C.  W.  D.  Va.     McDowell,  J. 

Carriers  prohibited,  by  injunction,  from  fulfilling  the  contract  on  the  ground 
that  it  constituted  an  undue  preference  in  favor  of  the  New  Haven  road  in 
violation  of  section  3. 

New  York,  New  Haven  &  Hartford  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Chesapeake  &  Ohio  Ry.  Co. 

200  TJ.  S.  361.    February  19,  1906.    White,  J. 
Carriers  prohibited  from  fulfilling  the  contract.    Lower  court  sustained. 


C&ICAGO    TERMINAL    SWITCHING    CASE. 

Cattle  Raisers'  Asso.  of  Texas  v.  Fort  Worth  &  Denver  City  Ry.  Co. 
7  I.  C.  C.  513.    January  20,  1898.     (See  12th  Ann.  Rep.,  25.) 

Docket  No.  466.     Op.   218.     Prouty,   Comr. 

On  live  stock  from  western  markets  to  Chicago,  111.,  the  through  rate  for 
many  years  included,  without  additional  charge,  a  terminal  switching  service 
in  Chicago.  In  1894  the  Union  Stock  Yards  Company  imposed  upon  the  rail- 
roads a  trackage  charge  for  this  terminal  service.  Whereupon  the  railroads 
imposed  upon  the  shippers  a  terminal  switching  charge  of  $2  per  car.  After 
a  complaint  was  filed,  attacking  the  increased  rate  as  unreasonable,  the  rail- 
roads reduced  the  through  rate  from  the  points  of  origin  by  5  cents  per  100 
pounds,  which  resulted  in  a  total  reduction  of  from  $10  to  $15  per  car.  The 
carriers  were  ordered  by  the  Commission  to  discontinue  charging  the  $2  ter- 
minal switching  charge  on  the  ground  that  it  was  unreasonable  to  the  extent 
that  it  exceeded  $1. 

Cattle  Raisers'  Asso.  of  Texas  v.  Fort  Worth  &  Denver  City  Ry.  Co. 
7  I.  C.  C.  555a.    August  4,  1898.     (See  12th  Ann.  Rep.,  27.) 

Docket  No.  466.     Op.  226.     Prouty,  Comr. 

Upon  rehearing,  former  decision  adhered  to.  Further  held  that  any  charge 
in  excess  of  $1  constitutes  an  undue  prejudice  to  Chicago. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  R.  R.  Co. 
94  Fed.  272.     May  9,  1899. 

C.  C.  N.  D.  111.,  N.  D.     Kohlsaatt,  J. 

On  demurrer,  held  that  petition  to  enforce  Commissioner's  order  was  not 
insufficient  on  the  theory  that  the  order  upon  which  it  was  based  was  an  attempt 
to  fix  a  rate.  Demurrer  overruled. 


30 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  R.  R.  Co. 
98  Fed.  173.     December  4,  1899. 

C.  C.  N.  D.  111.,  N.  D.     Kohlsaatt,  J. 

On  final  hearing,  Commission's  order  held  invalid  on  the  ground  that  the 
addition  of  a  $2  switching  charge  to  a  through  rate  is  not  unreasonable  when 
the  through  rate  itself  is  reduced  between  $10  and  $15  per  car. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  R.  R.  Co. 

103  Fed.  249.    June  15,  1900. 
C.  C.  A.  7th  Cir.     Brown,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  invalid  on  ground  stated  by  lower  court. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  R.  R.  Co. 
186  TT.  S.  320.    June  2,  1902.    White,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  invalid  on  ground  stated  by  lower  court. 

Decree  of  lower  courts  affirmed  without  prejudice  to  right  of  Commission  to 
correct  any  unreasonableness  in  the  rate  resulting  from  the  additional  charge 
as  to  any  territory  to  which  there  was  no  reduction  in  the  through  rate. 

Cattle  Raisers'  Asso.  of  Texas  v.  Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  R.  R.  Co. 

10  I.  C.  C.  83.    March  4,  1904.     (See  18th  Ann.  Rep.,  62.) 
Docket  No.  466.    Op.  300.     Prouty,  Comr. 

Case  reopened  on  question  of  reparation. 

Cattle  Raisers'  Asso.  of  Texas  v.  Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  R.  R.  Co. 

11  I.  C.  C.  277.    August  16,  1905.     (See  19th  Ann.  Rep.,  22.) 
Docket  No.  466.     Op.  357.     Prouty,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  discontinue  charging  the  $2  terminal  switching  charge 
in  respect  to  traffic  on  which  the  through  rate  had  not  been  reduced  on  the 
ground  that  such  charge  was  unreasonable  to  the  extent  that  it  exceeded  $1 
and  on  the  further  ground  that  it  constituted  an  undue  prejudice. 

Cattle  Raisers'  Asso.  of  Texas  v.  Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  R.  R.  Co. 

12  I.  C'.  C.  6.    November  14,  1906. 
Docket  No.  466.     Op.  394.    Prouty,  Comr. 

The  carriers  having  refused  to  comply  with  the  Commission's  order,  com- 
plainants asked  for  a  reopening  of  the  case  under  the  act  of  1906.  Petition 
denied. 

Cattle  Raisers'  Asso.  of  Texas  v.  Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  R.  R.  Co. 
12  I.  C.  C.  507.    October  21,  1907. 

Docket  No.  939.     Op.  508.     Prouty,  Comr. 

Upon  a  new  complaint  filed  under  the  Hepburn  Act,  the  carriers  were  ordered 
to  discontinue  charging  the  $2  terminal  switching  charge  on  all  shipments  of 
live  stock  originating  outside  the  State  of  Illinois  on  the  ground  that  such 
charge  was  unreasonable  to  the  extent  that  it  exceeded  $1  and  on  the  further 
ground  that  it  constituted  an  undue  prejudice.  The  Commission  further  pre- 
scribed a  maximum  charge  of  $1  for  the  future,  if  any  charge  is  maintained  by 
the  carriers. 


31 

Stickney  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
164  Fed.  638.  June  30,  1908. 

C.  C.  D.  Minn.,  3d  D.     Adams,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  invalid  on  ground  that  the  $2  terminal  switching 
charge  was  a  separately  established  charge,  that  it  was  reasonable  in  and  of 
itself,  and  that  it  could  not  be  condemned  as  unreasonable  on  account  of  some 
unreasonableness  in  the  through  charge  from  points  of  origin. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Stickney. 

215  IT.  S.  98.    November  29,  1909.    Brewer,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  invalid  on  ground  stated  by  lower  court. 


EEICHMANN   CASE. 

In  re  Transportation  by  Common  Carriers  in  Cars  not  Owned  by  Said  Common 
Carriers. 

Order  of  investigation  entered  April  28,  1904. 

During  an  investigation  by  the  Commission  into  the  matter  of  the  use  of 
private  cars  by  common  carriers,  one  Reichmann  declined  to  answer  certain 
questions  on  the  ground  that  the  Commission  was  without  authority  to  exact 
from  him  the  information  called  for. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Reichmann. 
145  Fed.  235.    February  27,  1906. 

C.  C.  N.  D.,  111.    Landis,  J. 

Witness  directed  to  answer  the  questions.  It  was  held  that  a  private 
car  line,  whose  cars  are  being  used  by  a  common  carrier,  is  prohibited  by  the 
act  from  paying  sums  of  money  to  shippers  in  order  to  induce  them  to  demand 
such  privately  owned  cars,  such  payments  being  a  departure  from  the  tariff 
rate. 


ELEVATION  ALLOWANCE  CASE. 

In  re  Allowances  to  Elevators  by  Union  Pacific  R.  R.  Co. 

10  I.  C.  C.  309.    June  25,  1904.     (See  18th  Ann.  Rep.,  46.) 

Docket  No.  687.     Op.  310.     Knapp,  Comr. 

In  order  to  retain  a  sufficient  number  of  its  cars  for  use  on  its  own  line,  the 
Union  Pacific  Railroad  Co.  deemed  it  necessary  to  make  some  arrangement 
whereby  grain  originating  on  its  line  could  be  transferred  into  cars  of  connect- 
ing carriers  at  its  terminals.  For  the  service  rendered  by  the  firm  of  Peavey  & 
Co.  in  making  such  transfer  through  elevators  owned  by  Peavey  &  Co.  an  eleva- 
tion allowance  of  li  cents  per  100  pounds  on  all  grain  passing  through  such 
elevators,  including  grain  shipped  by  Peavey  &  Co.  Held,  that  the  payment  of 
such  allowances  is  not  in  violation  of  the  act. 

In  re  Allowances  to  elevators  by  Union  Pacific  R.  R.  Co. 
12  I.  C.  C.  85.    April  9,  1907.     (See  21st  Ann.  Rep.,  56.) 

Docket  No.  687.     Op.  419.    Harlan,  Comr. 

Upon  rehearing  the  carrier  was  ordered  to  discontinue  the  payment  of  any 
elevation  allowance  in  excess  of  three-fourths  of  a  cent  per  100  pounds  on  the 
ground  that  any  allowance  in  excess  of  the  cost  of  rendering  the  service  con- 
stitutes a  rebate. 


32 

In  re  Allowance  to  Elevators  by  Union  Pacific  R.  R.  Co. 

13  I.  C.  C.  498.    April  14,  1908. 
Docket  No.  687.     Op.  604.     Harlan,  Comr. 
Case  reopened  for  further  bearing. 

In  re  Allowances  to  Eleva_tors  by  Union  Pacific  R.  R.  Co. 

14  I.  C.  C.  315.     June  29,  1908. 

Docket  No.  687.     Op.  681.     Harlan,  Comr. 

Upon  further  hearing  the  carrier  was  orderd  to  discontinue  the  payment  of 
any  and  all  allowances  to  Peavey  &  Co.  on  grain  in  which  the  latter  has  any 
interest  that  is  not  reshipped  from  the  elevators  within  10  days,  or  which  has 
been  mixed,  treated,  weighed,  or  inspected  in  the  elevators. 

Traffic  Bureau,   Merchants'  Exchange  of  St.  Louis  v.  Chicago,  Burlington  & 

Quincy  R.  R.  Co. 

14  I.  C.  C.  317.    June  29,  1908. 

Docket  Nos.  1239,  1240,  1241,  1263,  and  1267.     Op.  682.    Prouty,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  discontinue  the  payment  of  any  and  all  elevation  allow- 
ances to  elevators  located  upon  the  Missouri  River  on  the  ground  that  the  pay- 
ment of  an  allowance  of  three-fourths  of  a  cent  per  100  pounds  constitutes  an 
undue  discrimination. 

Traffic  Bureau,  Merchants'  Exchange  of  St.   Louis  v.   Chicago,   Burlington  & 

Quincy  R.  R.  Co. 

14  I.  C.  C.  510.     October  16,  1908. 

Docket  No.  1239.    Op.  699.    Prouty,  Comr. 

Reopening  of  case  for  further  hearing  denied,  but  effective  date  of  order 
postponed. 

Traffic  Bureau,  Merchants'   Exchange  of   St.   Louis  v.   Chicago,   Burlington  & 
Quincy  R.  R.  Co. 

14  I.  C'.  C.  551.    November  25,  1908. 

Docket  Nos.  1239,  1240,  1241,  1263,  and  1267.    Op.  717.    By  the  Commission. 
Effective  date  of  order  again  postponed. 

Peavey  &  Co.  v.  Union  Pacific  R.  R.  Co. 
Diffenbangh  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
176  Fed.  409.     March  3,  1910. 

C.  C.  W.  D.  Mo.,  W.  D.     Sanborn,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  invalid  on  the  ground  that  the  Commission  has  no 
power 'absolutely  to  prohibit  the  payment  of  any  allowance  to  the  owners  of 
elevators  furnishing  elevation  service  for  the  railroads.  It  was  held  that  the 
owners  of  the  elevators  are  entitled  to  an  allowance  which  affords  them  a 
reasonable  profit  over  and  above  the  cost  of  rendering  the  service,  and  that 
three-fourths  of  a  cent  per  100  pounds  is  a  reasonable  allowance. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Diffenbaugh. 

Same  v.  Peavey  &  Co. 

Union  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Peavey  &  Co. 

222  U.  S.  42.    November  13,  1911.    Holmes,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  valid  in  so  far  as  it  reduced  the  allowance  to  three- 
fourths  of  a  cent  (this  amount  including  a  reasonable  profit  over  the  cost  of  the 
service),  and  in  so  far  as  it  prohibited  the  payment  of  allowances  on  any 
grain  not  reshipped  from  the  elevator  within  10  days.  Commission's  order  held 
invalid  in  so  far  as  it  prohibited  to  payment  of  any  allowance  on  grain  that  is 
treated,  weighed,  inspected,  or  mixed  at  the  elevator.  Decree  of  tower  court 
modified  and  affirmed. 


33 

Traffic  Bureau,  Merchants'   Exchange  of  St.  Louis   v.   Chicago,   Burlington  & 

Quincy  R.  R.  Co. 

22  I.  C.  C.  496.     February  5,  1912. 

Docket  Nos.  1239,  1240,  1241,  1263,  and  1267.     Op.  1786.     Prouty,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  not  to  exceed  three-fourths  of  a  cent  per  100  pounds  in  the 
payment  of  elevation  or  transfer  allowances  at  the  Missouri  River,  and  to  con- 
fine that  payment  to  grain  actually  passing  through  the  elevators  in  10  days. 


ABERDEEN    GROUP   CASE. 

Aberdeen  Group  Commercial  Asso.  v.  Mobile  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co. 
10  I.  C.  C.  289.     June  25,  1904.     (See  18th  Ann.  Rep.,  50.) 

Docket  No.  620.     Op.  315.    Yeomans,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  discontinue  their  existing  rates  on  wheat,  flour,  corn, 
corn  meal,  and  oats  from  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  East  St.  Louis  and  Cairo,  111.,  which 
are  higher  for  the  shorter  haul  to  Aberdeen  and  other  Mississippi  cities  in 
the  so-called  Aberdeen  group  than  for  the  longer  haul  to  certain  other  points, 
on  the  ground  that  such  rates  are  unreasonable,  although  not  in  violation  of 
sections  3  and  4  on  account  of  competition  at  the  farther-distance  points. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Mobile  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co. 

Not  reported. 
C.  C.  N.  D.  Miss. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid.     No  appeal.     (20th  Ann.  Rep.,  45.) 


CHICAGO    LIVE-STOCK    CASE. 

Chicago  Live  Stock  Exchange  v.  Chicago  Great  Western  Ry.  Co. 
10  I.  C.  C'.  428.    January  7,  1905.     (See  19th  Ann.  Rep.,  42.) 

Docket  No.  618.     Op.  323.     Fifer,  Comr. 

From. the  Missouri  River  to  Chicago,  111.,  carriers  ordered  to  discontinue 
charging  higher  rates  on  live  stock  than  on  packing-house  products  on  the 
ground  that  the  lower  rates  on  the  products  constituted  an  undue  preference  in 
favor  of  the  products  in  violation  of  section  3. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Chicago  Great  Western  Ry.  Co. 
141  Fed.  1003.    November  20,  1905. 

C.  C.  N.  D.  111.,  E.  D.      Bethea,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  invalid  on  the  ground  that  there  is  no  violation  of 
section  3  on  account  of  railroad  competition  and  other  transportation  dissimi- 
larities. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Chicago  Great  Western  Ry.  Co. 

209  U.  S.  108.    March  23,  1908.    Brewer,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  invalid.     Judgment  of  lower  court  affirmed. 


YELLOW    PINE   LUMBER   CASE. 

Central  Yellow  Pine  Asso.  i?.  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 

10  I.  C.  C.  505.     February  7,  1905.     (See  19th  Ann.  Rep.,  27.) 

Docket  No.   707.     Op.   328.     Clements,   Comr. 

Advance  of  2  cents  per  100  pounds  in  rates  on  yellow-pine  lumber  from 
Mississippi,  Alabama,  and  Louisiana  to  Ohio  River  points  held  to  be  unreason- 
able, and  carriers  ordered  to  discontinue  such  advance. 

58069—14 3 


34 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Illinois  Central  K.  R.  Co. 

Not  reported. 
C.  C.   E.  D.  La. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid.     Carriers  directed  to  comply  therewith. 

Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

206  TT.  S.  441.     May  27,  1907.     McKenna,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid.     Carriers  directed  to  comply  therewith. 


YELLOW-PINE    LUMBER    CASE. 

Tift  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co. 

Not  reported.     May  16,  1903.     (See  17th  Ann.  Rep.,  77.) 

C.  C.  S.  D.  Ga.,  W.  D. 

Temporary  injunction  restraining  carriers  from  making  an  advance  of  2  cents 
per  100  pounds  in  the  rate  on  yellow-pine  lumber  from  Georgia  to  Chattanooga, 
Tenn.,  and  other  points,  dissolved  for  the  reason  that  the  proposed  advance  had 
not  been  made  effective. 

Tift  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co. 

123  Fed.  789.    July  16,  1903. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  Ga.,  W.  D.    Speer,  J. 

The  advanced  rates  being  in  effect,  an  injunction  restraining  the  enforcement 
of  the  advance  was  denied  for  the  reason  that  a  complaint  against  the  advance 
had  been  filed  with  the  Commission.  It  was  held  that  judicial  action  should 
be  withheld  until  the  Commission  acted. 

Tift  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co. 

10  I.  C.  C.  548.    February  7,  1905.     ( See  19th  Ann.  Rep.,  25. ) 

Docket  No.  698.     Op.  329.    Clements,   Comr. 

The  advance  was  held  to  be  unreasonable  and  the  carriers  were  ordered  to 
discontinue  it. 

Tift  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co. 

138  Fed.  753.     June  28,  1905. 

C.  C.  W.  D.  Ga.,  S.  D.     Speer,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid.  Carriers  restrained  from  enforcing  the 
advance;  and  reparation  awarded  in  accordance  with  stipulation. 

Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Tift 

148  Fed.  1021.     December  15,  1906. 

C.  C.  A.  5th  Cir.    Per  curiam. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid.  Carriers  restrained  from  enforcing  the 
advance;  and  reparation  awarded  in  accordance  with  stipulation. 

Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Tift. 

206  U.  S.  428.    May  27,  1907.    McKenna,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid.  Carriers  restrained  from  enforcing  the 
advance ;  and  reparation  awarded  in  accordance  with  stipulation. 


35 

MANDAMUS    CASE. 

U.  S.  ex  rel.  Knapp  v.  Lake  Shore  &  Michigan  Southern  Ry.  Co. 
Not  reported.     (See  18th  Ann.  Rep.,  90.) 

C.  C.  N.  D.  Ohio. 

Motion  to  dismiss  petition  for  mandamus  to  compel  filing  of  reports  as  pro- 
vided for  in  section  20  granted,  on  the  ground  that  the  court  had  no  original 
Jurisdiction  to  issue  the  writ. 

Knapp  v .  Lake  Shore  &  Michigan  Southern  Ry.  Co. 

197  TJ.  S.  536.    April  10,  1905.    McKenna,  ,7. 
Judgment  of  circuit  court  affirmed. 


HOPE    COTTON    OIL    CASE. 

Hope  Cotton  Oil  Co.  v.  Texas  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 

10  I.  C.  C.  696.    April  24,  1905.     (See  19th  Ann.  Rep.,  53.) 

Docket  No.  780.     Op.  338.    Prouty,  Comr. 

On  cotton  seed,  the  joint  rate  from  certain  Louisiana  points  to  Hope,  Ark., 
exceeded  the  local  rate  to  Texarkana,  Tex.,  plus  the  local  rate  thence  to  Hope. 
Complainant  desired  to  secure  the  benefit  of  the  lower  combination  of  local 
rates  by  shipping  on  the  local  rate  to  Texarkana  for  the  purpose  of  reshipping 
on  the  local  rate  from  that  point  to  Hope.  This  defendant  carriers  decline  to 
permit.  Held,  that  the  shipper  is  within  his  legal  rights  in  shipping  to  Tex- 
arkana for  the  purpose  of  reshipping  to  Hope.  Damages  in  the  sum  of  $2,240 
awarded  complainant. 

Hope  Cotton  Oil  Co.  v.  Texas  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 

Not  reported.    June,  1906.     (See  20th  Ann.  Rep.,  46.) 

C.  C.  N.  D.  Texas. 

Action  for  damages  based  on  Commission's  award  of  reparation  dismissed  on 
the  ground  that  the  complainant  is  not  legally  entitled  to  ship  on  the  local  rate 
to  Texarkana  and  thence  reship  on  the  local  rate  to  Hope. 

Hope  Cotton  Oil  Co.  v.  Texas  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 

12  I.  C.  C.  265.    July  8,  1907.     (See  21st  Ann.  Rep.,  74.) 

Docket  No.  915.    Op.  465.     Harlan,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  establish  a  joint  rate  of  17^  cents  on  cotton  seed  from 
certain  Louisiana  points  to  Hope,  Ark.,  on  the  ground  that  the  existing  joint 
rate  of  30  cents  is  unreasonable  to  the  extent  that  it  exceeded  the  combination 
of  local  rates. 


BECONSIGNMENT    CASE. 

St.  Louis  Hay  &  Grain  Co.  v.  Mobile  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co. 
11  I.  C.  C.  90.    May  15,  1905. 

Docket  No.  757.     Op.  342.     Prouty,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  discontinue  their  practice  of  charging  2  cents  per  100 
pounds  as  a  reconsigninent  charge  on  hay  at  East  St.  Louis,  111.,  on  the  ground 
that  such  charge  is  unreasonable  to  the  extent  that  it  exceeds  1  cent  per  100 
pounds,  the  cost  of  rendering  the  service. 


36 

St.  Louis  Hay  &  Grain  Co.  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co. 
149  Fed.  609.    June  25,  1906. 

C.  C.  E.  D.  111.    Wright,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  Damages  awarded  on  basis  of  Commis- 
sion's award  of  reparation. 

Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Hay  &  Grain  Co. 

153  Fed.  728.    April  16,  1907. 
C.  C.  A.  7th  Cir.     Baker,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  valid.    Judgment  of  lower  court  sustained. 

Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Hay  &  Grain  Co. 

214  TT.  S.  297.    June  1,  1909.    Brewer,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  invalid  on  ground  that  carriers  are  entitled  to  a 
reasonable  profit  over  and  above  the  cost  of  rendering  an  extra  and  additional 
service.  Judgment  of  both  lower  courts  reversed  with  directions  to  remand  the 
matter  to  the  Commission  for  further  investigation  and  report. 

St.  Louis  Hay  &  Grain  Co.  v.  Mobile  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co. 
Same  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 
Lucas  &  Co.  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 
Bartlett  Commission  Co.  v.  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 
19  I.  C.  C.  533.    November  7,  1910. 

Docket  Nos.  757,  884,  923,  946.    Op.  1420.     Clements,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  discontinue  their  practice  of  charging  2  cents  per  100 
pounds  as  a  reconsignment  charge  on  hay  at  East  St.  Louis,  111.,  on  the  ground 
that  such  charge  is  unreasonable  to  the  extent  that  it  exceeded  1£  cents  per  100 
pounds.  Reparation  awarded.  (See  also  St.  Louis  Hay  &  Grain  Co.  v.  Mobile 
&  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.,  18  I.  C.  C.  607 ;  May  10,  1910.  Docket  No.  757,  Memorandum 
decision). 


TEXAS  LIVE  STOCK  KATE  CASE. 

Cattle  Raisers  Asso.  of  Texas  v.  Missouri,  Kansas  &  Texas  Ry.  Co. 

11  I.  C.  C.  296.    August  16,  1905.     (See  19th  Ann.  Rep.  21.) 
Docket  No.  732.     Op.  358.     Prouty,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  the  rate  on  live  stock  from  North  of  the  Texas 
quarantine  line  to  Colorado  and  other  points  on  the  ground  that  such  rate  was 
unreasonable.  Charge  of  $2  per  car  for  terminal  switching  service  at  Union 
Stock  Yards  at  Chicago,  111.,  held  to  be  unreasonable  to  extent  that  it  exceeded 
$1  per  car.  Question  of  reparation  reserved. 

Cattle  Raisers  Asso.  of  Texas  v.  Missouri,  Kansas  &  Texas  Ry.  Co. 

12  I.  C.  C.  1.    November  14,  1906. 
Docket  No.  732.     Op.  395.     Prouty,  Comr. 

Further  hearing  granted  so  that  case  could  proceed  under  section  15  of  the 
amended  act  of  June  29,  1906. 

Cattle  Raisers  Asso.  of  Texas  v.  Missouri,  Kansas  &  Texas  Ry.  Co. 

13  I.  C.  C.  418.    April  14,  1908. 
Docket  No.  732.     Op.  597.     Prouty,  Comr. 

Former  decision  affirmed,  but  conclusion  announced  that  no  reparation  would 
be  awarded  on  shipment  moving  prior  to  August  29,  1906,  the  date  on  which 
was  filed  the  petition  for  further  proceedings  under  the  act  of  1906. 


37 

Missouri,  Kansas  &  Texas  Ry.  Co^  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
164  Fed.  645.    October  23,  1908. 

C.  C.  E.  D.  Mo.    Per  curiam. 

Upon  suggestion  of  court,  Commission  itself  rescinded  so  much  of  its  order 
as  related  to  the  terminal  switching  charge.  Carriers'  application  for  injunc- 
tion against  enforcement  of  Commission's  order  denied. 

Missouri,  Kansas  &  Texas  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  reported.     November  4,  1910.     (24th  Ann.  Rep.,  19.) 
C.  C.  E.  D.  Mo. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid. 

Cattle  Raisers  Asso.  of  Texas  v.  United  States. 
Not  reported.    June  29,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  63. 

Following  Proctor  &  Gamble  v.  U.  S.  (225  U.  S.,  282)  to  the  effect  that  a  de- 
nial of  relief  by  the  Commission  is  not  an  order  of  which  the  Commerce  Court 
has  jurisdiction,  bill  of  shippers  seeking  to  annul  Commission's  action  in  de- 
clining to  award  reparation  on  shipments  moving  prior  to  date  of  filing  of  com- 
plaint, dismissed  for  want  of  jurisdiction. 

Cattle  Raisers  Asso.  of  Texas  v.  Missouri,  Kansas  &  Texas  Ry.  Co. 

30  I.  C.  C.  721.     TJnreported  Opinion  No.  A-583.     January  12,  1914. 
Docket  No.  732.     Prouty,  Comr. 
Reparation  awarded. 


SIDETRACK    CONNECTION    CASE. 

Red  Rock  Fuel  Co.  v.  Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co. 

11  I.  C.  C.  438.    November  25,  1905.     (See  19th  Ann.  Rep.,  47.) 

Docket  No.  812.    Op.  364.    Fifer,  Comr. 

Carrier  ordered  to  cease  denying  to  complainant  a  sidetrack  connection  be- 
tween its  line  and  the  line  of  complainant  while  granting  such  facilities  to 
other  mines  in  the  Fairmont,  W.  Va.,  district,  on  the  ground  that  such  denial 
constitutes  an  undue  prejudice,  in  violation  of  section  3. 

Red  Rock  Fuel  Co.  v.  Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co. 

Not  reported. 
C.  C.  N.  D.  W.  Va. 
This  case,  it  is  understood,  was  never  decided. 


STATION   FACILITIES    CASE. 

Preston  &  Davis  v.  Delaware,  Lackawanna  &  Western  R.  R.  Co. 
12  I.  C.  C.  114.    April  26,  1907.     (See  21st  Ann.  Rep.,  63.) 

Docket  No.  929.     Op.  422.     Knapp,  Comr. 

Carrier  ordered  to  allow  the  delivery  of  oil  in  tank  cars  at  a  certain  terminal 
in  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  on  the  ground  that  a  discontinuance  of  delivery  there  sub- 
jects complainant  to  an  undue  prejudice. 


38 

Delaware,  Lackawauua  &  Western  R.  It.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
155  Fed.  512.  August  10,  1907.  (See  21st  Ann.  Rep.,  87.) 

C.  C.  S.  D.  N.  Y.    Lacombe,  /. 

Motion  for  preliminary  injunction  to  restrain  enforcement  of  Commission's 
order  denied.  Bill  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

Delaware,  Lackawanna  &  Western  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  reported.     April  3,  1911. 
Commerce  Court,  No.  10. 
Case  dismissed  by  stipulation. 


COLORED   PASSENGER   CASE. 

Edwards  v.  Nashville,  Chattanooga  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. 

12  I.  C.  C.  247.    June  24,  1907.     (See  21st  Ann.  Rep.,  65.) 

Docket  No.  1101.    Op.  460.    Lane,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  furnish  to  colored  passengers  train  accommodations  simi- 
lar to  those  furnished  white  passengers. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Nashville,  Chattanooga  &  St.  Louis  Ry  Co. 
Not  reported.  January  21,  1908. 

C.  C.  M.  D.  Tenn. 

Carrier's  demurrer  to  bill  to  enforce  Commission's  order  overruled.  Case 
transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Nashville,  Chattanooga  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. 

Not  reported.     May  17,  1908. 
Commerce  Court  No.  8. 
Case  dismissed  by  stipulation. 


ABANDONED   PROPERTY    CASE. 

In  re  Uniform  System  of  Accounts  for  Steam  Railroads. 

Commission  orders  of  June  3,  1907 ;  June  1,  1908 ;  June  21,  1909 ;  and  May 
81,  1910. 

Uniform  system  of  accounts  and  classification  of  expenditures  for  additions 
and  betterments  prescribed. 

Kansas  City  Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
204  Fed.  641.    April  21,  1913. 

Commerce  Court,  No.  56.1    Carland,  J. 

Commission's  orders  held  to  be  valid,  on  the  ground  that  they  are  reasonable, 
within  the  power  of  the  Commission,  and  do  not  deprive  complainant  of  its 
property  without  due  process  of  law. 

Kansas  City  Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 

231  U.  S.  423.     December  1,  1913.     Pitney,  J. 

Commission's  orders  held  to  be  valid  in  all  respects,  on  the  ground  that  they 
were  proper,  under  section  20.  Section  20  held  not  to  be  an  unconstitutional 
delegation  of  legislative  power  to  the  Commission. 

1  Record  transferred  to  the  District  Court  for  the  Eastern  District  of  Missouri,  upon 
dissolution  of  the  Commerce  Court. 


39 

HABBIMAN    INVESTIGATION. 

In  re  Consolidations  of  Carriers. 
12  I.  C.  C.  277.    July  11,  1907. 

Docket  No.  943.     Op.  467.     Lane,  Comr. 

Edward  H.  Harriinan  and  another  witness  declined  to  answer  certain  questions 
during  an  investigation  by  the  Commission  into  the  matter  of  the  consolidatiou 
of  certain  railroads,  including  the  acquisition  and  control  of  the  Southern  Pacific 
Co.  by  the  Union  Pacific  Co. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Harrlman. 
157  Fed.  432.    January  15,  1908. 

C.  C.-S.  D.  N.  Y.     Hough,  J. 

Some  of  the  questions  were  held  proper,  and  the  witnesses  were  directed  to 
answer  same.  Other  questions  were  held  improper,  and  the  witnesses  were  not 
directed  to  answer  them. 

Harrimau  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Kahn  v.  Same. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Harriman. 

211  IT.  S.  407.    December  14,  1908.     (See  22d  Ann.  Rep.,  17.)     Holmes,  J. 
Held,  that  the  Commission  has  no  authority  to  inquire  into  the  matters  con- 
cerning which  the  questions  were  asked,   that  the  questions  were  therefore 
improper,  and  that  the  witnesses  should  not  be  required  to  answer  any  of  the 
questions  which  they  had  declined  to  answer. 


UNION    STOCK   YARDS    CASE. 

In  re  Proposed  Contract  between  the  Union  Stock  Yards  &  Transit  Co.  and 
Pfaelzer  &  Sons. 

Ex  Parte  Docket  No.  25. 

Proposed  contract  which  provides  for  the  payment  of  a  certain  sum  of  money 
by  the  Union  Stock  Yards  &  Transit  Co.  or  afliliated  interests  to  Pfaelzer  & 
Sons  to  assist  the  latter  in  rebuilding  their  plant  along  the  line  of  the  former, 
held  to  be  in  violation  of  the  act. 

United  States  v.  Union  Stock  Yards  &  Transit  Co. 

C.  C.  N.  D.  111. 

Bill  to  enjoin  the  carrying  out  of  the  contract  and  to  compel  the  filing  of 
tariffs  and  reports  by  the  Stock  Yards  Co.,  the  Junction  Co.,  and  the  Investment 
Co.,  transferred  to  the  Commerce  Court. 

United  States  v.  Union  Stock  Yards  &  Transit  Co. 

192  Fed.  330;  1  Com.  Ct.  189,  225.    November  14,  1911. 

Commerce  Court  No.  15.    Mack,  J. 

Writ  of  mandamus  issued  to  compel  the  Junction  Co.  to  file  tariffs ;  but  bill 
dismissed  as  to  the  Stock  Yards  Co.  and  the  Investment  Co.  on  the  ground  that 
they  are  not  common  carriers  subject  to  the  act,  and  that  therefore  the  court 
has  no  jurisdiction  to  determine  the  legality  of  the  contract.  Bill  also  dis- 
missed, in  so  far  as  it  sought  to  compel  the  filing  of  'reports  by  the  Stock  Yards 
Co.  and  the  Junction  Co.  on  the  ground  that  there  is  no  allegation  in  the  bill 
that  the  Commission  had  by  order  required  these  companies  to  file  reports. 


40 

United  States  v.  Union  Stock  Yards  &  Transit  Co. 

192  Fed.  348.     February  13,  1912. 
Commerce  Court  No.  15.    Mack,  J, 
Decision  affirmed  on  rehearing. 

United  States  v.  Union  Stock  Yards. 
Chicago  Junction  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 

226  IT.  S.  286.    December  9,  1912.    Day,  J. 

Held,  that  the  contract  constitutes  an  unlawful  rebate  and  that  its  enforce- 
ment must  be  enjoined;  that  the  Stock  Yards  Co.  and  the  Investment  Co.  are 
common  carriers  subject  to  the  act;  that  the  Commerce  Court  had  properly 
issued  its  writ  of  mandamus  to  compel  the  Junction  Co.  to  file  tariffs  with  the 
Commission;  and  that  the  Commerce  Court  properly  declined  to  compel  the 
Stock  Yards  Co.  and  the  Junction  Co.  to  file  reports  since  these  companies  were 
under  no  obligation  to  file  reports  until  required  to  do  so  by  an  order  of  the 
Commission. 


BUFFALO    GRAIN    CASE. 

Banner  Milling  Co.  v.  New  York  Central  &  Hudson  River  R.  R.  Co. 

13  I.  C.  C.  31.    December  16,  1907. 
Docket  No.  1197.    Op.  526.    Prouty,  Comr. 

Advanced  rates  on  grain  and  grain  products  from  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  to  New 
York  City  and  certain  New  England  points  held  unreasonable.  Carriers  given 
a  limited  time  within  which  to  reduce  the  rates  to  a  specified  amount. 

Banner  Milling  Co.  v.  New  York  Central  &  Hudson  River  R.  R.  Co. 

14  I.  C.  C.  398.    June  27,  1908. 
Docket  No.  1535.    Op.  692.    Prouty,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  the  rates  to  a  specified  amount. 

New  York  Central  &  Hudson  River  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission. 

Not  reported.     (See  22d  Ann.  Rep.,  23.) 
C.  C.  S.  D.  N.  Y. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid.    Application  for  an  injunction  against 

order  denied.    Case  withdrawn  by  railroads. 

Banner  Milling  Co.  v.  New  York  Central  &  Hudson  River  R.  R.  Co. 
19  I.  C.  C.  128.    June  10,  1910. 

Docket  Nos.  1197  and  1535.    Op.  1354.    Prouty,  Comr. 

Upon  rehearing  of  Commission  cases,  the  carriers  were  permitted  to  make 
the  advance. 


CAB   DISTRIBUTION    CASE — TRAEB. 

Traer,  receiver  of  Illinois  Collieries  Co.  v.  Chicago  &  Alton  R.  R.  Co. 
Same  v.  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 
13  I.  C.  C.  451.    April  13,  1908. 

Docket  Nos.  1294,  1295,  and  1317.     Op.  599.     Clark,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  discontinue  their  existing  practice  of  distributing  coal 
cars  in  times  of  car  shortage  on  the  ground  that  it  is  unjustly  discriminatory  to 
fail  to  count  "  company  fuel  cars,"  "  foreign  railway  cars,"  and  "  private  cars  " 
S  gainst  the  quota  of  the  mines  receiving  such  cars. 


41 

Chicago  &  Alton  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Same. 
173  Fed.  930.    June  29,  1908. 

C.  C.  N.  D.  111.    Baker,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  invalid  in  so  far  as  it  required  carriers  to  count 
their  own  fuel  cars  against  the  distributive  share  of  the  mines  receiving  such 
cars.  In  other  respects,  Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 

215  TJ.  S.  452.    January  10,  1910.    White,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  valid  in  all  respects.  Company  fuel  cars,  also,  it  was 
held,  are  subject  to  regulation  by  the  Commission. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Chicago  &  Alton  R.  R.  Co. 

215  TJ.  S.  479.    January  10,  1910.    White,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  in  all.  respects. 


CAEDIFF    COAL    CASE. 

Cardiff  Coal  Co.  v .  Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Ry.  Co. 
13  I.  C.  C.  460.    April  6,  1908. 

Docket  No.  1040.     Op.  600.     Harlan,  Comr. 

Carriers  required  to  reestablish  a  through  route  and  joint  rate  from  com- 
plainant's mine  at  Cardiff,  111.,  on  the  ground  that  the  cancellation  of  such  route 
and  rate  subjects  complainant  to  an  unjust  discrimination. 

Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
C.  C.  N.  D.  111. 
Bill  to  annul  Commission's  requirement  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  reported.    April  3,  1911. 
Commerce  Court  No.  17. 
Case  dismissed  on  motion  of  petitioning  carrier. 


THOMPSON  LUMBEB  CASE. 

Thompson  Lumber  Co.  v.  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 

13  I.  C.  C.  657.    June  1,  1908. 

Docket  No.  1227.     Op.  631.     Lane,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  from  12  to  10  cents  per  100  pounds,  their  rate  on 
hardwood  lumber  from  Memphis,  Tenn.,  to  New  Orleans,  La.,  on  the  ground 
that  12-cent  rate  was  unreasonable.  Reparation  to  be  awarded  only  on  ship- 
ments moving  after  the  filing  of  complaint  with  Commission. 

Thompson  Lumber  Co.  v.  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 

14  I.  C.  C.  566.    November  9,  1908. 
Docket  No.  1227.     Op.  723.     Lane,  Comr. 

Held  that  staves,  headings,  and  cooperage  should  be  given  the  benefit  of  the 
reduced  rate  fixed  for  lumber  in  the  former  decision.  Former  decision  on  point 
of  reparation  adhered  to. 


42 

Thompson  Lumber  Co.  v.  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 
18  I.  C.  C.  83.    March  7,  1910. 

Docket  No.  1227.     Op.  1185.     Lane,  Comr. 

Reparation  awarded  on  shipments  moving  after  filing  of  complaint  but  denied 
on  shipments  moving  prior  thereto. 

Darnell  v.  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 
190  Fed.  656.     June  23,  1911. 

C.  C.  W.  D.  Tenn.,  W.  D.     McCall,  J. 

Action  at  law  to  recover  damages,  based  on  decision  of  Commission,  dis- 
missed on,  the  grounds  (1)  that  there  had  been  no  award  of  reparation  by  the 
Commission  in  favor  of  the  plaintiff,  and  (2)  that,  a  state  court  having  no  juris- 
diction of  such  a  case,  the  Federal  court  acquired  no  jurisdiction  by  removal 
from  such  state  court. 

Darnell  v.  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 

225  U.  S.  243.    June  7,  1912.     White,  C.  J. 

Case  dismissed  on  ground  that  it  could  not  be  taken  directly  from  the  Federal 
circuit  court  to  the  Supreme  Court.  Held,  however,  that  the  right  to  take 
cognizance  of  a  claim  based  on  an  award  of  reparation  by  the  Commission  is 
not  confined  solely  to  the  Federal  courts,  but  is  equally  possessed  by  state  courts 
having  general  jurisdiction. 

Thompson  Lumber  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

C.  C.  N.  D.  111.,  E.  D. 

Bill  to  annul  Commission's  order  in  so  far  as  it  denied  reparation  on  ship- 
ments moving  prior  to  filing  of  complaint,  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

Thompson  Lumber  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
193  Fed.  682;   1  Com.  Ct.  319.     February  13,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  19.    Archbald,  J. 

Held,  that  Commerce  Court  has  jurisdiction  of  the  case  and  that  the  Com- 
mission is  without  power  to  deny  reparation  solely  on  the  ground  of  laches 
or  to  refuse  to  declare  a  rate  unreasonable  because  its  unreasonableness  is  not 
conclusively  established  by  the  complainant.  It  was  held  that  it  is  only  nec- 
essary for  petitioners  to  show  by  a  preponderance  of  proof  that  the  rate  is  un- 
reasonable. 

Thompson  Lumber  Co.  c.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
Not  reported.     October  9,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  19. 

Following  Procter  &  Gamble  v.  IJ.  S.  (225  U.  S.,  282)  to  the  effect  that  a 
denial  of  relief  by  the  Commission  is  not  an  order  of  which  the  Commerce  Court 
has  jurisdiction,  case  dismissed  for  want  of  jurisdiction. 


BURGESS  LUMBER  CASE. 

Burgess  v.  Transcontinental  Freight  Bureau. 
13  I.  C.  C.  668.    June  2,  1908. 

Docket  No.  1138.    Op.  632.    Prouty,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  from  85  to  75  cents  per  100  pounds  their  rate  on 
lumber  from  Chicago,  111.,  to  Pacific  coast,  on  the  ground  that  the  85-cent  rate 
was  unreasonable.  Reparation  to  be  awarded  only  on  shipments  moving  after 
filing  of  complaint  with  Commission. 


43 

Burgess  v.  Transcontinental  Freight  Bureau. 
19  I.  C.  C.  611.    October  10,  1910. 

Docket  No.  1138.    U.  R.  No.  229.    Prouty,  Comr. 

Reparation  awarded  on  shipments  moving  after  filing  of  complaint,  but  denied 
on  shipments  moving  prior  thereto. 

Darnell-Taenzer  Lumber  Co.  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 
190  Fed.  659.    August  17,  1911. 

C.  C.  W.  D.  Tenn.,  W.  D.     McCall,  J. 

Action  at  law  to  recover  damages,  based  on  Commission's  award  of  repara- 
tion, dismissed  on  the  ground  that  the  declaration  was  faulty  in  that  it  did 
not  aver  that  plaintiffs  had  paid  the  unreasonable  rates  nor  that  plaintiffs  were 
damaged  thereby.  The  report  and  order  of  the  Commission,  it  was  held,  were 
not  sufficient  to  make  out  a  prima  facie  case,  because  such  report  and  order 
failed  to  find'  that  plaintiffs  paid  the  unreasonable  rate  or  that  plaintiffs  were 
actually  damaged  by  reason  of  such  unreasonable  rate. 

Russe  &  Burgess  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

C.  C.  N.  D.  111. 

Bill  to  annul  Commission's  order  in  so  ifar  as  it  denied,  reparation  on  ship- 
ments moving  prior  to  date  of  filing  of  complaint.  Transferred  to  Commerce 
Court. 

Russe  &  Burgess  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
193  Fed.  678;  1  Com.  Ct.  311.    February  13,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  18.    Archbald,  J. 

Held  that  Commerce  Court  has  jurisdiction  of  the  case  and  that  the  Com- 
mission is  without  power  to  deny  reparation  solely  on  the  ground  of  laches. 

Russe  &  Burgess  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
Not  reported.     October  9,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  18. 

Following  Procter  &  Gamble  v.  U.  S.  (225  U.  S.,  282)  to  the  effect  that  a 
denial  of  relief  by  the  Commission  is  not  an  order  of  which  the  Commerce 
Court  has  jurisdiction,  case  dismissed  for  want  of  jurisdiction. 


WILLAMETTE  VALLEY  LUMBER   CASE. 

Western  Oregon  Lumber  Manufacturers  Asso.  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 
14  I.  C.  C.  61.    June  1,  1908. 

Docket  No.  1331.    Op.  637.    Prouty,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  an  advanced  rate  on  rough 
green  fir  lumber  from  Willamette  Valley,  Oreg.,  to  San  Francisco,  Cal.,  on  the 
ground  that  such  rate  is  unreasonable. 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

C.  C.  N.  D.  Cal. 

Case,  undecided,  certified  to  Supreme  Court,  because  trial  court  was  divided 
on  the  merits. 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

215  U.  S.  226.    December  6,  1909.    Fuller,  (7.  J. 
Certificate  dismissed  and  case  remanded  to  circuit  court. 


44 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

177  Fed.  963.     February  28,  1910. 
C.  C.  N.  D.  Cal.    Ross,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid. 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

219  TJ.  S.  433.    February  20,  1911.    White,  C.  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  it  was  based  upon 
the  assumed  power  of  the  Commission  to  prevent  railroad  companies  from  rais- 
ing their  rate  on  the  theory  that  they  were  estopped  to  advance  such  rate  on 
account  of  having  maintained  it  for  a  considerable  period.  Such  power,  it  was 
held,  has  not  been  conferred  upon  the  Commission. 

Oregon  &  Washington  Lumber  Manufacturers  Asso.  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 
21  I.  C.  C.  389.    June  22,  1911. 

Docket  No.  3571.    Op.  1625.    Prouty,  Comr. 

Excluding  the  element  of  estoppel  from  consideration,  the  Commission  again 
ordered  the  carriers  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  the  advanced  rate  on  rough 
green  fir  lumber  from  Willamette  Valley,  Oreg.,  to  San  Francisco,  Cal.,  on  the 
ground  that  such  rate  was  unreasonable. 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  United  States. 

197  Fed.  167.    June  7,  1912. 
Commerce  Court  No.  59.1    Archbald,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid. 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  United  States. 

232  IT.  S.  736.    March  17,  1914. 
Dismissed  on  motion  of  appellants. 


CAB   DISTRIBUTION    CASE. 

Rail  &  River  Coal  Co.  v.  Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co. 
14  I.  C.  C.  86.    June  2,  1908. 

Docket  No.  1322.     Op.  640.     Harlan,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  discontinue  their  existing  practice  of  distributing  coal  cars 
in  times  of  car  shortage  on  the  ground  that  it  is  unjustly  discriminatory  to 
fail  to  count  "  railway  fuel  cars,"  and  "  private  cars  "  against  the  quota  of  the 
mines  receiving  such  cars. 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
Not  reported.     December  34,  1908. 

C.  C.  D.  Md. 

After  denying  a  preliminary  injunction  against  the  enforcement  of  the  Com- 
mission's order,  the  circuit  court,  being  divided  in  opinion  on  the  merits  of  the 
case,  certified  the  case,  undecided,  to  the  Supreme  Court. 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

215  TJ.  S.  216.     December  6,  1909.     Fuller,  G.  J. 

Case  remanded  to  circuit  court  without  decision,  on  the  ground  that  a  whole 
case  can  not  be  certified  to  the  Supreme  Court. 

1  The  record  in  this  case  was  transferred  to  the  District  Court  for  the  District  of 
Oregon,  upon  dissolution  of  the  Commerce  Court. 


45 

BAH  WAY    VALLEY    CASE. 

Railway  Valley  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Delaware,  Lackawanna  &  Western  R.  R.  Co., 
14  I.  C.  C.  191.    June  24,  1908. 

Docket  No.  1351.     Op.  665.     Lane,  Comr. 

Carrier  ordered  to  establish  a  switch  connection  at  Summit,  N.  J.,  with  com- 
plainant short  line,  upon  application  of  such  short  line. 

Delaware,  Lackawanna  &  Western  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commision. 
166  Fed.  498.  October  22,  1908.  (22d  Ann.  Rep.,  63.) 

C.  C.  S.  D.  N.  Y.    Per  curiam. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  the  Commission 
has  authority  to  order  the  establishment  of  a  switch  connection  with  a  lateral 
branch  line  of  railroad  only  upon  application  of  a  shipper. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Delaware,  Lackawanna  &  Western  R.  R.  Co. 

216  TJ.  S.  531.     March  7,  1910.     Holmes,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  stated  by  the  lower 
court. 

Delaware,  Lackawanna  &  Western  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
Not  reported.  May  25,  1911.  (See  25th  Ann.  Rep.,  208.) 

Commerce  Court  No.  28. 

Commission's  order  held  invalid  and  its  enforcement  permanently  enjoined  in 
accordance  with  mandate  of  Supreme  Court. 


GALVESTON    WHARFAGE    CASE. 

Eichenberg  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 
14  I.  C.  C.  250.    June  24,  1908. 

Docket  No.  1277.     Op.  647.     Knapp,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  discontinue  their  practice  of  granting  to  one  Young  ex- 
clusive wharfage  facilities  at  Galveston,  Tex.,  and  exempting  him  from  pay- 
ment of  wharfage  charges,  while  denying  similar  facilities  to  other  shippers  and 
exacting  wharfage  charges  from  them  on  the  ground  that  the  existing  practice 
constitutes  an  undue  preference  under  section  3. 

Southern  Pacific  Terminal  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commisison. 
166  Fed.  134.    December  18,  1908. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  Tex.    Pardee,  J. 

Preliminary  injunction  against  enforcement  of  Commission's  order  denied. 
Application  to  certify  case  to  Supreme  Court  denied. 

Southern  Pacific  Terminal  Co.  V.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  reported.    December  23,  1909. 
C.  C.  S.  D.  Tex. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid. 

Southern  Pacific  Terminal  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

219  U.  S.  498.    February  20,  1911.    McKenna,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  on  the  ground  that  the  practice  of  the 
carriers  constitutes  an  undue  preference. 


46 


Eichenberg  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 

28  I.  C'.  C.  584.    December  8,  1913. 
Docket  No.  1277.     Op.  2493.     McChord,  Comr. 
Reparation  awarded. 


HOURS    OF    SERVICE    REPORTS. 

In  re  Hours  of  Service  Reports. 

Commission  order  of  March  3,  1908. 

Carriers  ordered  to  report  all  cases  where  employees  have  been  on  duty  for  a 
period  longer  than  permitted  by  act  of  March  4,  1907. 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  reported.     March  12,  1909. 
C.  C.  D.  Md. 
Petition  dismissed  and  order  of  Commission  held  to  be  valid. 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

221  IT.  S.  612.     May  29,  1911.     Hughes,  J.     ( See  25th  Ann.  Rep.,  83. ) 
Hours  of  service  act  held  to  be  constitutional  and  order  of  Commission  held 
to  be  valid. 


HOURS    OF    SERVICE    REPORTS. 

In  re  Hours  of  Service  Reports. 

Commission  order  of  March  3,  1908. 

Carriers  ordered  to  report  all  cases  where  employees  have  been  on  duty  for 
a  period  longer  than  permitted  by  the  act  of  March  4,  1907. 

New  York,  Ontario  &  Western  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
C.  C.  S.  D.  N.  Y. 
Bill  to  annul  Commission's  order  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

New  York,  Ontario  &  Western  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  reported.    October  2,  1911. 
Commerce  Court  No.  11. 
Case  dismissed  by  stipulation. 


HOURS    OF    SERVICE    REPORTS. 

In  re  Hours  of  Service  Reports. 

Commission  order  of  March  3,  1908. 

Carriers  ordered  to  report  all  cases  where  employees  have  been  on  duty  for 
a  period  longer  than  permitted  by  the  act  of  March  4,  1907. 

Central  R.  R.  Co.  of  N.  J.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
C.  C.  S.  D.  N.  Y. 
Bill  to  annul  Commission's  order  transferred  to  Commerce  Court 

Central  R.  R.  Co.  of  N.  J.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  reported.    October  2,  1911. 
Commerce  Court  No.  12. 
Case  dismissed  by  stipulation. 


47 

HOURS    OF    SERVICE   REPORTS. 

In  re  Hours  of  Service  Reports. 

Commission  order  of  March  3,  1908. 

Carriers  ordered  to  report  all  cases  where  employees  have  been  on  duty  for 
a  period  longer  than  permitted  by  act  of  March  4,  1907. 

Delaware,  Lacka wanna  &  Western  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
C.  C.  S.  D.  N.  Y. 
Bill  to  annul  Commission's  order  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

Delaware,  Lackawanna  &  Western  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  reported.    October  2,  1911. 
Commerce  Court  No.  13. 
Case  dismissed  by  stipulation. 


HOURS  OF  SERVICE  REPORTS. 

In  re  Hours  of  Service  Reports. 

Commission  order  of  March  3,  1908. 

Carriers  ordered  to  report  all  cases  where  employees  have  been  on  duty  for 
a  period  longer  than  permitted  by  the  act  of  March  4,  1907. 

New  York  Central  &  Hudson  River  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  N.  Y. 
Bill  to  annul  Commission's  order  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

New  York  Central  &  Hudson  River  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission. 

Not  reported.    October  2,  1911. 
Commerce  Court  No.  14. 
Case  dismissed  by  stipulation. 


HOURS   OF   SERVICE   REPORTS. 

In  re  Hours  of  Service  Reports. 

Commission  order  of  March  3,  1908. 

Carriers  ordered  to  report  all  cases  where  employees  have  been  on  duty  for 
a  period  longer  than  permitted  by  the  act  of  March  4,  1907. 

Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
C.  C.  E.  D.  Pa. 
Bill  to  annul  Commission's  order  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  reported.    October  2,  1911. 
Commerce  Court  No.  29. 
Case  dismissed  by  stipulation. 


HOURS    OF    SERVICE    REPORTS. 


In  re  Hours  of  Service  Reports. 

Commission  order  of  March  3,  1908. 

Carriers  ordered  to  report  all  cases  where  employees  have  been  on  duty  for 
a  period  longer  than  permitted  by  the  act  of  March  4,  1907. 


48 

Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Cominerce  Coinraission. 
C.  C.  E.  D.  Pa. 
Bill  to  annul  Commission's  order  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  reported.    October  2,  1911. 
Commerce  Court  No.  30. 
Case  dismissed  by  stipulation. 


HOURS    OF    SERVICE    REPORTS. 

In  re  Hours  of  Service  Reports. 

Commission  order  of  March  3,  1908. 

Carriers  ordered  to  report  all  cases  where  employees  have  been  on  duty  for 
a  period  longer  than  permitted  by  the  act  of  March  4,  1907. 

Philadelphia  &  Reading  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
C.  C.  E.  D.  Pa. 
Bill  to  annul  Commission's  order  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

Philadelphia  &  Reading  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  reported.    October  2,  1911. 
Commerce  Court  No.  37. 
Case  dismissed  by  stipulation. 


HOURS    OF    SERVICE   REPORTS. 

In  re  Hours  of  Service  Reports. 

Commission  order  of  March  3,  1908. 

Carriers  ordered  to  report  all  cases  where  employees  have  been  on  duty  for 
period  longer  than  permitted  by  the  act  of  March  4,  1907. 

Boston  &  Maine  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
C.  C.  D.  Mass. 
Bill  to  annul  Commission's  order  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

Boston  &  Maine  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  reported.    October  2,  1911. 
Commerce  Court  No.  32. 
Case  dismissed  by  stipulation. 


HOURS    OF    SERVICE   REPORTS. 

In  re  Hours  of  Service  Reports. 

Commission  order  of  March  3,  1908. 

Carriers  ordered  to  report  all  cases  where  employees  have  been  on  duty  for  a 
period  longer  than  permitted  by  the  act  of  March  4,  1907. 

New  York,  New  Haven  &  Hartford  R.  R.  Co.  -i;.  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission. 
C.  C.  D.  Conn. 
Bill  to  annul  Commission's  order  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 


49 

New  York,  New  Haven  &  Hartford  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Coi«  ...uerce  Com- 
mission. 

Not  reported.    October  2,  1911, 
Commerce  Court  No.  45. 
Case  dismissed  by  stipulation. 


HOURS   OF   SERVICE  REPORTS. 

In  re  Hours  of  Service  Reports. 

Commission  order  of  March  3,  1908. 

Carriers  ordered  to  report  all  cases  where  employees  have  been  on  duty  for  a 
period  longer  than  permitted  by  the  act  of  March  4,  1907. 

Erie  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission.  v 

C.  C.  D.  N.  J. 
Bill  by  carriers  to  annul  Commission's  order  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

Erie  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  reported.    October  2,  1911. 
Commerce  Court  No.  48. 
Case  dismissed  by  stipulation. 


BAER  BROS.   CASE. 

Baer  Bros.  Mercantile  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 
13  I.  C.  C.  329.    April  6,  1908. 

Docket  No.  1060.     Op.  583.     Prouty,  Comr. 

Reparation  awarded  on  account  of  unreasonable  rates  collected  for  the  trans- 
portation of  beer  from  Pueblo,  Colo.,  to  Leadville,  Colo.,  originating  in  St. 
Louis,  Mo. 

Baer  Bros.  Mercantile  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 
Not  reported. 

C.  C.  D.  Colo. 

Action  brought  to  enforce  order  of  Commission  on  award  of  reparation.  At 
the  trial  the  court  directed  a  verdict  and  rendered  judgment  in  favor  of 
plaintiff. 

Denver  &  Rio  Grande  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Baer  Bros.  Mercantile  Co. 
187  Fed.  485.     May  18X  1911. 

C.  C.  of  Apps.  8th  Cir.     Sanborn,  J. 

Lower  court  reversed.  Order  prescribing  maximum  rate  for  future  should 
have  been  entered  as  condition  precedent  to  an  award  of  reparation. 

Baer  Bros.  Mercantile  Co.  v.  Denver  &  Rio  Grande  R.  R.  Co. 

233  U.  S.  479.    April  27,  1914.    Lamar,  /. 
Circuit  court  of  appeals  reversed  and  decision  of  circuit  court  affirmed. 

58069—14 4 


50 

MISSOUBI   BIVEB   BATE   CASE. 

Burnham,  Hanna,  Munger  Dr>  Goods  Co.  f.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  &  Pacific 

Ry.   Co. 

14  I.  C.  C.  299.    June  24,  1908. 

Docket  No.  983.     Op.  6SO.     Clark,   Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  that  portion  of  a  combination  through  rate  which 
applied  to  the  haul  between  the  Mississippi  and  Missouri  Rvers  on  traffc  mov- 
ing from  the  Atlantic  seaboard  to  Kansas  City,  Mo.,  and  other  Missouri  River 
cities,  on  the  ground  that  such  factor  of  the  through  rate  is  unreasonable. 

Chicago,  Rock  Island  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
*Not  reported.    November  6,  1908. 

C.  C.  N.  D.  111.,  B.  D.     Grosscup,  J. 

Temporary  injunction  granted  against  enforcement  of  Commission's  order 
on  the  ground  that  it  disturbed  commercial  conditions  that  had  grown  up  under 
the  former  rate  basis. 

Chicago,  Rock  Island  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
171  Fed.  680.    August  24,  1909. 

C.  C.  N.  D.  111.,  B.  D.     Grosscup,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  invalid  on  the  ground  that  it  arbitrarily  created 
trade  zones.  Enforcement  of  order  permanently  enjoined. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 
Burnham,  Hanna,  Munger  Dry  Goods  Co.  v.  Same. 

218  U.  S.  88.    May  31,  1910.    McKenna,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  in  all  respects.  It  did  not,  the  court 
held,  arbitrarily  create  trade  zones. 


THBOUGH    BATE    CASE. 

Flint  &  Walling  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Lake  Shore  &  Michigan  Southern  Ry.  Co. 
14  I.  C.  C.  336.    June  27,  1908. 

Docket  No.  1498.     Op.  684.     Prouty,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  their  joint  rate  on  water  tanks  and  substructures 
From  Kendallville,  Ind.,  to  Beaver  Dam,  Wis.,  on  the  ground  that  the  joint 
rate  is  unreasonable  to  extent  that  it  exceeds  the  combination  of  local  rates. 
Reparation  awarded. 

Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  reported.    April  20,  1909. 
C.  C.  N.  D.  111.,  E.  D. 
Bill  dismissed ;  Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid. 


HECKEB-JONES-JEWELL     CASE. 

Hecker-Jones-Jewell  Milling  Co.  v.  Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co. 
14  I.  C.  C.  356.    June  24,  1908. 

Docket  No.  1304.     Op.  688.     Prouty,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  desist  from  according  to  flour  milled  at  interior  points 
a  lower  rate  for  export  than  is  imposed  upon  the  grain  of  complainant, 
located  at  New  York  City,  which  is  subsequently  ground  into  flour  and  other 
products  which  are  exported. 


51 

New  York  Central  &  Hudson  River  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commis- 
sion. 

168  Fed.  131.    February  8,  1909. 
C.  C.  S.  D.  N.  Y.     Noyes,  J. 
Temporary  injunction   against  enforcement   of   Commission's   order   denied. 

Case  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

New  York  Central  &  Hudson  River  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commis- 
eion. 

Not  reported.    April  3,  1911. 
Commerce  Court  No.  27. 
Case  dismissed  without  opinion  upon  motion  of  petitioning  carrier. 


CONSOLIDATED    SHIPMENT    CASE. 

California  Commercial  Asso.  v.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co. 

14  I.  C.  C.  422.    June  22,  1908.     (22d  Annual  Rep.,  11.) 

Docket  No.  1280.    Op.  694.    Lane,  Comr. 

Express  company  ordered  to  apply  carload  rates  on  consolidated  carload 
shipments  on  the  ground  that  the  practice  of  charging  the  parcel  rate  on  each 
package  in  such  consolidated  carload  shipments  is  unreasonable  and  unjustly 
discriminatory. 

Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
Not  reported. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  N.  Y. 

Pending  the  determination  of  the  case  of  Export  Shipping  Co.  v.  Wabash 
R.  R.  Co.  (14  I.  C.  C.  437;  166  Fed.  499;  220  TL  S.,  235),  the  order  in  this  case 
was  suspended  by  the  Commission.  There  was  therefore  no  action  by  the  court 

California  Commercial  Asso.  v.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co. 

21  I.  C.  C.  300.    June  22,  1911. 
Docket  No.  12SO.     Op.  1620.     Lane,  Comr. 
Former  order  and  decision  adhered  to. 


CONSOLIDATED    SHIPMENT    CASE. 

Export  Shipping  Co.  v.  Wabash  R.  R.  Co. 
14  I.  C.  C.  437.    June  22,  1908. 

Docket  Nos.  1228,  1229,  and  1230.     Op.  695.     Lane,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  apply  carload  rates  on  consolidated  carload  shipments 
on  the  ground  that  the  practice  of  charging  the  parcel  rate  on  each  package 
In  such  consolidated  carload  shipments  is  unreasonable  and  unjustly  discrim- 
inatory. 

Delaware,  Lackawanna  &  Western  R.   R.   Co.  v.   Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission. 

166  Fed.  499.    November  27,  1908. 
C.  C.  S.  D.  N.  Y.    Per  curiam. 

Commission's  order  held  invalid  on  the  ground  that  the  practice  of  the  car- 
riers was  reasonable. 


52 

Delaware,  Lackawanna  &  Western  R.  R.  Co.  v.   Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission. 

169  Fed.  894.     February  18,  1909. 
C.  C.  S.  D.  N.  Y    Per  curiam. 

In  granting  application  of  the  American  Forwarding  Co.,  Transcontinental 
Freight  Co.,  and  Rockford  Manufacturers  &  Shippers  Association  to  intervene 
its  parties  defendant  the  court  said :  It  is  not  to  be  understood  to  be  sanction- 
Ing  a  practice  which  would  allow  every  interested  person  to  intervene  in  pro- 
ceedings of  this  nature. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Delaware,  Lackawanna  &  Western  R.  R. 

Co. 

220  TT.  S.  235.     April  3,  1911.     White,  C.  J. 

Commission's  order  held  valid  on  the  ground  that  a  carrier  can  not  refuse  to 
transport  carload  lots  at  carload  rates  merely  because  the  goods  do  not  actually 
belong  to  one  shipper  or  merely  because  they  are  shipped  by  a  forwarding 
•gency. 


FLORIDA  EAST  COAST  CASE. 

Florida  Fruit  &  Vegetable  Shippers'  Protective  Asso.  v.  Atlantic  Coast  Line 

R.  R.  Co. 

14  I.  C'.  C.  476.    June  25,  1908. 

Docket  No.  1168.     Op.  698.     Prouty,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  their  rates  on  oranges,  pine- 
apples, and  vegetables  from  Jacksonville,  Fla.,  to  northeastern  and  other  points, 
on  the  ground  that  the  existing  rates  are  unreasonable. 

Florida  Fruit  &  Vegetable  Shippers'  Protective  Asso.  v.  Atlantic  Coast  Line 

R.  R.  Co. 

17  I.  C.  C.  552.    February  8,  1910. 

Pocket  Nos.  1168  and  2566.     Op.  1153.    Prouty,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  their  rates  and  to  modify 
their  regulations  and  practices  in  connection  with  the  transportation  of  citrus 
fruits,  pineapples,  and  vegetables  from  Jacksonville,  Fla.,  and  other  Florida 
base  points  to  Chicago,  111.,  Baltimore,  Md.,  and  other  points,  on  the  ground 
that  the  existing  rates,  regulations,  and  practices  are  unreasonable. 

Florida  Fruit  &  Vegetable  Shippers'  Protective  Asso.  v.  Atlantic  Coast  Line 

R.  R.  Co. 
Same  v.  Alabama  &  Vicksburg  Ry.  Co. 

21  I.  C.  C.  677.    June  20,  1911. 

Docket  Nos.  1168  and  2566.     Unreported  Op.  418.     Prouty,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  their  rates  on  citrus  fruits 
from  Jacksonville,  Fla.,  and  other  Florida  base  points  to  points  not  enumerated 
In  former  order  (17  I.  C.  C.  552). 

Florida  Fruit  &  Vegetable  Shippers'  Protective  Asso.  v.  Atlantic  Coast  Line 

R.  R.  Co. 
Railroad  Commission  of  Florida  v.  Seaboard  Air  Line  Ry.  Co. 

22  I.  C.  C.  11.    November  6,  1911. 

Docket  Nos.  1168  and  3808.     Op.  1687.     Prouty,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  their  rates  on  pineapples, 
citrus  fruits,  and  vegetables  from  producing  points  in  Florida  to  Jacksonville, 
Fla.,  when  destined  for  points  beyond  in  other  states,  on  the  ground  that  such 
rates  are  unreasonable. 


53 

Florida  East  Coast  Ry.  Co.  r.  United  States 
200  Fed.  797.    November  13,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  58.1    Mack,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  on  the  ground  that  the  Commission's 
findings  were  based  on  sufficient  evidence  and  that  the  rates  fixed  are  not 
confiscatory. 

Florida  East  Coast  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
234  IT.  S.  167.    June  8,  1914.    White,  G.  J. 

Action  of  Commerce  Court  reversed  and  case  remanded  to  district  court  with 
directions  to  restrain  enforcement  of  order  of  Commission. 


LIGHTERAGE  ALLOWANCE  CASE. 

In  re  Allowance  for  Transfer  of  Sugar. 
14  I.  C.  C.  619.     December  12,  1908. 

Docket  No.  1487.     Op.  742.     Cockrell,  Comr. 

In  accordance  with  a  provision  to  that  effect  in  their  tariffs,  certain  carriers 
paid  an  allowance  of  2  cents  per  100  pounds  to  shippers  at  New  York  City  for 
carting  or  lightering  their  sugar  from  their  refineries  to  the  railroad  stations. 
Held,  that  this  constitutes  an  unlawful  rebate.  The  payment  of  the  allowance 
was  prohibited;  but  no  order  was  entered. 

American  Sugar  Refining  Co.  v.  Delaware,  Lackawanna  &  Western  R.  R.  Co. 
Same  v.  New  York  Central  &  Hudson  River  R.  R.  Co. 
200  Fed.  652.     November  21,  1912. 

D.  C.  D.  N.  J.     Rellstab,  J. 

Without  canceling  the  tariff  provision  for  the  payment  thereof,  defendant 
carriers  discontinued  payment  of  the  allowance.  This  action  was  brought  to 
recover  the  unpaid  allowance.  Case  dismissed  on  the  ground  that  the  mere 
decision  of  the  Commission,  without  an  order,  prohibiting  the  payment  of  the 
allowance  on  the  ground  that  it  was  a  rebate,  eliminated  the  provision  from 
the  tariff,  and  that  the  carriers  could  not  be  compelled  to  pay  the  allowance. 

American  Sugar  Refining  Co.  v.  Delaware,  Lackawanna  &  Western  R.  R.  Co. 
Same  v.  New  York  Central  &  Hudson  River  R.  R.  Co. 
207  Fed.  733.     August  19,  1913. 

C.  C.  A.  3d  Cir.     Gray,  J. 

Lower  court  reversed  on  the  ground  that  the  mere  decision  of  the  Commis- 
sion did  not  eliminate  the  allowance  provision  from  the  tariffs,  and  that  the  com- 
plainant was  entitled  to  recover  the  full  amount  of  the  unpaid  allowance.  Only 
by  a  formal  order,  it  was  held,  can  the  Commission  annul  or  change  a  regula- 
tion or  practice  contained  in  a  filed  tariff. 


LIGHTERAGE  ALLOWANCE  CASE — FEDERAL   SUGAB. 

Federal  Sugar  Refining  Co.  v.  Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co. 
17  I.  C.  C.  40.     June  24,  1909. 

Docket  No.  1082.     Op.  1039.     Knapp,  Comr. 

For  services  rendered  Arbuckle  Bros,  in  furnishing,  within  the  free  lighter- 
age limits  of  New  York,  a  terminal,  terminal  facilities,  and  in  lightering  nier- 

1  The  record  in  this  case,  upon  dissolution  of  the  Commerce  Court,  was  transferred  to 
the  District  Court  for  the  Southern  District  of  Florida. 


54 

chandise  from  such  terminal  to  defendant's  railroad  station  defendant  paid  to 
Arbuckle  Bros,  a  certain  money  allowance  upon  each  100  pounds  of  merchandise 
passing  through  such  terminal,  such  allowance  being  paid  on  the  sugar  of 
Arbuckle  Bros,  as  well  as  on  goods  of  other  shippers.  At  the  same  time  defend- 
ant refused  to  pay  a  similar  allowance  to  complainant's  refinery  at  Yonkers, 
N.  Y.,  a  point  outside  the  lighterage  limits.  Held,  that  the  denial  of  such 
allowance  to  complainant  was  not  in  violation  of  the  act.  Complaint  dismissed. 

Federal  Sugar  Refining  Co.  v.  Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co. 
20  I.  C.  C.  200.    December  5,  1910. 

Docket  No.  2SS8.     Op.  1500.     Harlan,  Comr. 

After  the  above  case  was  decided,  complainant  changed  its  method  of  handling 
its  sugar.  Under  the  new  arrangement  it  lightered  its  sugar  from  its  refinery 
to  Pier  24,  a  point  within  the  lighterage  limits,  and  again  from  the  pier  to 
defendant's  railroad  station.  The  Commission  ordered  the  carriers  to  discon- 
tinue its  practice  of  paying  an  allowance  to  Arbuckle  Bros,  on  its  sugar,  while 
at  the  same  time  denying  a  similar  allowance  to  complainant  on  its  sugar  moving 
from  Pier  24  to  defendant's  railroad  station,  on  the  ground  that  the  existing 
practice  subjected  complainant  to  an  undue  discrimination. 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
Not  reported.     May  22,  1911. 

Commerce  Court  No.  38. 

Enforcement  of  Commission's  order  temporarily  enjoined.  No  written 
opinion. 

United  States  v.  Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co. 

225  TJ.  S.  306.     June  10,  1912.    White,  C.  J. 

Commerce  Court  decree  affirmed  on  the  ground  that  the  Commerce  Court  has 
authority  to  issue  a  temporary  injunction  in  a  case  like  this. 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
200  Fed.  779.     November  15,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  38.    Garland,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that,  as  a  matter  of 
law,  the  practice  of  defendant  in  the  matter  of  lighterage  allowances  was  not 
unlawful. 

United  States  v.  Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co. 

231  TT.  S.  274.    December  1,  1913.    Lurton,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that,  as  a  matter  of  law, 
the  practice  of  defendant  in  the  matter  of  lighterage  allowances  was  not 
unlawful. 


PTEITES  CINDEB  CASE. 

Naylor  &  Co.  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co. 
15  I.  C.  C.  9.    January  5,  1909. 

Docket  No.  1511.    Op.  746.    Lane,  Comr. 

Carrier  ordered  to  reduce  rates  on  pyrites  cinders  from  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  to 
Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey  points  on  the  ground  that  the  existing  rates  are 
unreasonable.  Reparation  denied. 


55 

Naylor  &  Co.  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co. 

18  I.  C.  C.  624.     June  2,  1910. 
Docket  No.  1511.    U.  R.  No.  168.     Lane,  Comr. 
Upon  rehearing,  reparation  awarded. 

Clark  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co. 

Not  reported. 

D.  C.  E.  D.  Pa.    Holland,  J. 
Damages  awarded  on  basis  of  Commission's  award  of  reparation. 

Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Clark. 
207  Fed.  717.     August  25,  1913. 

C.  C.  A.  3d  Cir.     Gray,  J. 

Lower  court  reversed  on  the  ground  that  there  was  no  proof  of  damage.  It 
was  held  that  the  report  of  the  Commission  did  not  contain  findings  of  fact 
sufficient  to  constitute  a  prima  facie  case  of  actual  damage  by  the  plaintiff. 


FLAXSEED  CASE. 

Red  Wing  Linseed  Co.  v.  Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Ry.  Co. 
15  I.  C.  C.  47.     January  5,  1909. 

Docket  No.  1896.     Op.  757.     Clark,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  their  rate  on  flaxseed  from 
Britton,  S.  Dak.,  to  Red  Wing,  Minn.,  on  the  ground  that  such  rate  was  un- 
reasonable. Reparation  awarded. 

Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Ry.  Co.  i?.  .Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
Bill  to  annul  Commission's  order  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  reported.     April  3,  1911. 
Commerce  Court  No.  16. 
Case  dismissed  on  motion  of  petitioning  carrier. 


MISROUTING   CASE. 

Woodward  &  Dickerson  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 
15  I.  C.  C.  170.     February  1,  1909. 

Docket  No.  1726.     Op.  778.     Lane,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  pay  to  complainant,  as  reparation,  the  difference  be- 
tween the  rate  actually  paid  and  the  rate  applicable  via  route  designated  by 
the  shipper  on  the  ground  that  the  carriers  had  misrouted  a  shipment  of  crude 
phosphate  rock,  moving  from  St.  Blaise,  Tenn.,  to  Riddlesburg,  Pa.  A  letter 
from  complainant,  setting  forth  the  facts,  was  held  to  constitute  a  sufficient 
complaint  to  stop  the  running  of  the  statute  of  limitations. 

Dickerson  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 

187  Fed.  874.     July  26,  1910. 
C.  C.  S.  D.,  Ohio,  W.  D.     Hollister,  J. 
Damages  awarded  on  basis  of  Commission's  award  of  reparation. 


56 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Dickerson. 
191  Fed.  705.     November  7,  1911. 

C.  C.  A.  6th  Cir.     Knappen,  J. 

Lower  court  sustained.     Judgment  included  an  allowance  of  attorney's  fee 
in  both  courts. 


PLANT  FACILITY   CASE. 

Crane  Railroad  Co.  v.  Philadelphia  &  Reading  Ry.  Co. 
15  I.  C.  C.  248.     February  2,  1909. 

Docket  No.  1112.     Op.  797.     Knapp,  Comr. 

Held,  that  complainant  is  not  entitled  to  the  establishment  of  through  routes 
and  joint  rates  with  defendant  on  ground,  among  others,  that  it  is  not  shown 
that  complainant  is  a  common  carrier.  Complaint  dismissed. 

Crane  Iron  Works  v.  Central  R.  R.  of  N.  J. 
17  I.  C.  C.  514.     February  8,  1910. 

Docket  No.  2673.    Op.  1146.     Prouty,  Comr. 

Complaint,  seeking  establishment  of  through  routes  and  Joint  rates  in  con- 
nection with  the  Crane  Railroad  (an  industrial  road  performing  a  plant  fa- 
cility service)  dismissed. 

Crane  Iron  Works  «.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  reported.     November  10,  1911.     (See  24  Ann.  Rep.,  21.) 

Sup.  Ct.  D.  C. 

Petition  for  mandamus  to  compel  Commission  to  grant  relief  asked.  Suit  dis- 
continued upon  motion  of  plaintiffs  attorney. 

Crane  Iron  Works  v.  United  States. 
209  Fed.  238.     June  7,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  55.     Knapp,  J. 

Commission's  order  of  dismissal  held  to  be  valid  on  the  ground  that  the 
Commission  is  vested,  by  section  15,  with  discretion  in  the  matter  of  establish- 
ing joint  through  route  and  that  the  refusal  of  the  Commission  to  establish 
such  a  route  in  this  case  was  a  lawful  and.  proper  exercise  of  that  discretion. 

Crane  Iron  Works  v.  United  States. 

Commerce  Ct.  No.  55. 
June  29,  1912. 

Following  Procter  &  Gamble  v.  U.  S.  (225  U.  S.,  282)  to  the  effect  that  a 
denial  of  relief  by  the  Commission  is  not  an  order  of  which  the  Commerce 
Court  has  jurisdiction,  case  dismissed  for  want  of  jurisdiction. 


DENVER   BATE    CASE. 

Kindel  v.  New  York,  New  Haven  &  Hartford  R.  R.  Co. 
15  I.  C.  C.  555.     March  2,  1909. 

Docket  No.  951.     Op.  853.    Clark,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  certain  rates  from  the  Missouri  River,  Chicago, 
111.,  and  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  to  Denver,  Colo.,  and  from  Denver  to  Utah  common 
points  on  the  ground  that  the  rates  are  unreasonable  and  unduly  prejudicial  to 
Denver. 


57 

Chicago,  Rock  Island  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
171  Fed.  680.     August  24,  1909. 

C.  C.  N.  D.  111.,  E.  D.     Grosscup,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  invalid  on  the  ground  that  it  arbitrarily  created 
trade  zones. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  R.  R.  Co. 

218  U.  S.  113.     May  31,  1911.    McKenna,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  in  all  respects.     It  did  not,  it  was  held, 
arbitrarily  create  trade  zones. 


NORTHWESTERN  LUMBER  CASES. 

Kalispell  Lumber  Co.  v.  Great  Northern  Ry.  Co. 
157  Fed.  845.     December  4,  1907. 

C.  C.  D.,  Mont.     Hunt,  J. 

Pending  determination  by  the  Commission  of  the  reasonableness  of  advanced 
rates,  effective  November  1,  1907,  on  lumber  and  other  forest  products  from  the 
Flathead  district,  Mont.,  to  North  Dakota  and  other  States,  an  injunction  was 
granted  restraining  the  enforcement  of  the  new  rates,  notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  the  new  rates  had  already  gone  into  effect  before  the  bill  for  the  in- 
junction was  filed. 

Great  Northern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Kalispell  Lumber  Co. 
165  Fed.  25.     October  5,  1908. 

C.  C.  A.  9th  Cir.     Gilbert,  J. 

Lower  court  reversed  on  ground  that  the  court  had  no  jurisdiction  to  re- 
strain the  enforcement  of  the  new  rates  after  such  rates  had  gone  into  effect. 

Kalispell  Lumber  Co.  v.  Great  Northern  Ry.  Co. 
16  I.  C.  C.  164.    May  4,  1909. 

Docket  No.  1365.     Op.  910.     Cockrell,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  the  advanced  rates  on  the  ground  that  the  ad- 
vanced rates  are  unreasonable. 

Potlatch  Lumber  Co.  v.  Spokane  Falls  &  N.  Ry.  Co. 
157  Fed.  588.    December  24,  1907. 

C.  C.  E.  D.  Wash.,  E.  D.     Whitson,  J. 

Pending  determination  by  the  Commission  of  the  reasonableness  of  advanced 
rates,  effective  November  1,  1907,  on  lumber  and  other  forest  products  from 
Washington  to  other  States,  an  injunction  restraining  the  enforcement  of  the 
new  rates  was  denied  on  the  ground  that  the  court  has  no  jurisdiction  to  issue 
such  injunction  after  the  new  rates  had  gone  into  effect. 

Potlatch  Lumber  Co.  v.  Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 
14  I.  C.  C.  41.     June  2,  1908. 

Docket  No.  1348.     Op.  635.     Cockrell,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  the  advanced  rates  on  the  ground  that  the  ad- 
vanced rates  are  unreasonable. 


58 

Oregon  &  Washington  Lumber  Mfrs.  Asso.  v.  Union  Pacific  R.  R.  Co. 
Not  reported.     October  31,  1907. 

C.  C.  D.  Oreg.    Wolverton,  J. 

Pending  determination  by  the  Commission  of  the  reasonableness  of  advanced 
rates,  effective  November  1,  1907,  on  lumber  and  other  forest  products  from 
Oregon  to  other  states,  an  injunction  was  granted  restraining  the  enforcement 
of  the  new  rates,  the  bill  therefor  having  been  filed  before  the  new  rates  went 
Into  effect. 

Union  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Oregon  &  Washington  Lumber  Mfrs.  Asso. 
165  Fed.  13.     October  5,  1908. 

C.  C.  A.  9th  Cir.    Gilbert,  J. 

Lower  court  affirmed  on  the  ground  that  the  court  has  authority  to  re- 
strain the  enforcement  of  the  new  rates  before  such  rates  had  gone  into 
effect. 

Oregon  &  Washington  Lumber  Mfrs.  Asso.  v.  Union  Pacific  R.  R.  Co. 
14  I.  C.  C.  1.     June  2,  1908. 

Docket  No.  1327.    Op.  633.    Clark,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  the  advanced  rates  on  the  ground  that  the  advanced 
rates  are  unreasonable. 

Pacific  Coast  Lumber  Mfrs.  Asso.  v.  Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 
Not  reported.     October  31,  1907. 

C.  C.  W.  D.  Wash.     Hanford,  J. 

Pending  determination  by  the  Commission  of  the  reasonableness  of  ad- 
vanced rates,  effective  November  1,  1907,  on  lumber  and  other  forest  products 
from  Washington  to  other  states,  an  injunction  was  granted  restraining  the 
enforcement  of  the  new  rates,  the  bill  therefor  having  been  filed  before  the 
new  rates  went  into  effect. 

Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  Pacific  Coast  Lumber  Mfrs.  Asso. 
165  Fed.  1.     October  5,  1908. 

C.  C.  A.  9th  Cir.     Gilbert,  J. 

Lower  court  affirmed  on  the  ground  that  the  court  has  jurisdiction  to  restrain 
the  enforcement  of  the  new  rates  before  such  rates  went  into  effect. 

Pacific  Coast  Lumber  Mfrs.  Asso.  v.  Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 
Southwest  Washington  Lumber  Mfrs.  Asso.  v.  Same. 
14  I.  C.  C.  23.     June  2,  1908. 

Docket  Nos.  1329  and  1335.     Op.  634.     Clements,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  the  advanced  rates  on  the  ground  that  the  ad- 
vanced rates  are  unreasonable. 

Pacific  Coast  Lumber  Mfrs.  Asso.  v.  Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 
Potlatch  Lumber  Co.  v.  Same. 
16  I.  C.  C.  465.    June  22,  1909. 

Docket  Nos.  1329  and  1348.    Op.  993'.     Clark,  Comr. 

Rehearing  and  modification  of  prior  orders  of  Commission  in  these  cases 
denied. 


59 

Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
Union  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Same. 
Great  Northern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Same. 
Not  reported.     October  9,  1910. 

C.  C.  D.  Minn.    Per  curiam. 

Orders  of  Commission  held  invalid  on  the  ground  that  the  rates  fixed  by  the 
Commission  are  unreasonably  low. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Union  Pacific  R.  R.  Co. 
Same  v.  Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 
Same  v.  Great  Northern  Ry.  Co. 

222  U.  S.  541.     January  9,  1912.     Lamar,  /. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid. 


PORTLAND    GATEWAY    CASE. 

In  re  Through  Passenger  Routes  via  Portland,  Oreg. 

16  I.  C.  C.  300.    May  4,  1909.     (See  23d  Ann.  Rep.,  7.) 

Docket  No.  1544.    Op.  938.    Prouty,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  establish  a  through  route  and  joint  rate  for  passengers 
and  baggage  from  Seattle,  Wash.,  to  various  destinations  via  Portland,  Oreg., 
on  the  ground  that  an  existing  through  route  is  not  "  reasonable  and  satis- 
factory." 

Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
Not  reported.     June  5,  1909.     (See  23d  Ann.  Rep.,  37.) 

C.  C.  D.  Minn. 

Enforcement  of  Commission's  order  temporarily  restrained  on  the  ground 
that  the  Commission  had  no  authority  to  make  the  order. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 

216  IT.  S.  538.     March  7,  1910.    Holmes,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  invalid  on  the  ground  that  a  satisfactory  through 
route  already  existed.  It  was  held  that  the  existence  of  a  satisfactory  through 
route  precludes  the  Commission  from  establishing  another. 


TRANSIT  PRIVILEGE   CASE. 

Duncan  &  Co.  v.  Nashville,  Chattanooga  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. 
16  I.  C.  C.  590.     June  24,  1909. 

Docket  No.  1698.     Op.  1026.     Clements,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  discontinue  their  practice  of  paying  an  elevation  allow- 
ance and  granting  the  privilege  of  reshipping  or  rebilling  at  Nashville,  Tenn., 
In  connection  with  shipments  of  hay,  grain,  and  grain  products  while  denying 
such  privileges  at  Atlanta,  Columbus,  and-  certain  other  Georgia  cities  on  the 
ground  that  the  existing  practices  subject  the  Georgia  cities  to  an  undue 
prejudice  and  disadvantage. 


60 

Duncan  &  Co.  v.  Nashville,  Chattanooga  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. 

21  I.  C.  C.  186.     June  9,  1911. 
Docket  No.  1698.     Op.  1593.     Clements,  Comr. 
Former  decision  affirmed  upon  further  hearing. 

Nashville  Grain  Exchange  v.  United  States, 
Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
191  Fed.  37.     October  24,  1911. 

Commerce  Court  Nos.  46 1  and  47.     Garland,  J. 

Enforcement  of  Commission's  order  enjoined  pending  final  determination  of 
the  case. 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
197  Fed.  58.     June  7,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  47.     Garland,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  invalid  on  the  ground  that  competition  at  Nashville 
justifies  the  granting  of  the  privileges  at  that  point  while  denying  such 
privileges  at  the  Georgia  cities. 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
Pending  Supreme  Court,  United  States. 


DES   MOINES   PROPORTIONAL   RATE   CASE. 

Greater  Des  Moines  Committee  v.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 
17  I.  C.  C.  54.     June  25,  1909. 

Docket  Nos.  1231  and  1289.     Op.  1040.    Lane,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  their  proportional  rates  on 
through  traffic  to  Des  Moines,  Iowa,  on  the  ground  that  existing  rates  are 
unreasonable. 

Chicago,  Rock  Island  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
C.  C.  N.  D.  111.,  E.  D. 
Bill  to  annul  Commission's  order  transferred  to  Commerce  Court 

Chicago,  Rock  Island  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  reported.     April  18,  1912. 
Commerce  Court  No.  20. 
Case  dismissed  by  stipulation. 


BIG  VEIN  COAL  CASE. 

American  Coal  Co.  v.  Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co. 
17  I.  C.  C.  149.     June  7,  1909. 

Docket  No.  2024.     Op.  1059.     Harlan,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  discontinue  charging  a  higher  rate  on  big-vein  than  on 
small-vein  coal  from  Georges  Creek  Basin,  Md.,  to  New  York  City  and  other 
coast  points,  on  the  ground  that  the  existing  rate  adjustment  constitutes  an 
undue  prejudice. 

1  No.  46  was  consolidated  with  No.  47.  Record  transferred  to  the  District  Court  for 
the  Middle  District  of  Tennessee  upon  dissolution  of  the  Commerce  Court. 


61 

Philadelphia  &  leading  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

174  Fed.  687.     November  20,  1909. 
C.  C.  E.  D.  Pa.    Buffington,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid. 


LEADVILLE  BEEB  CASE. 


Baer  Bros.  Mercantile  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 
17  I.  C.  C.  225.     November  26,  1909. 

Docket  No.  2010.     Op.  1107.     Clements,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  that  portion  of  a  combination  through  rate  which 
applied  to  the  haul  from  Pueblo,  Colo.,  to  Leadville,  Colo.,  on  beer  moving  from 
St.  Louis,  Mo.,  on  the  ground  that  such  factor  of  the  through  rate  was  un- 
reasonable. Reparation  to  be  awarded. 

Denver  &  Rio  Grande  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
Not  reported.     January  25,  1910. 

C.  C.  D.  Colo. 

Injunction  to  restrain  enforcement  of  Commission's  order  denied.  Case  trans- 
ferred to  Commerce  Court 

Denver  &  Rio  Grande  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

195  Fed.  968.     April  9,  1912. 
Commerce  Court  No.  35.     Knapp,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid. 


NEW   ORLEANS    BOARD   OF  TRADE   CASE. 

New  Orleans  Board  of  Trade  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 
17  I.  C.  C.  231.     November  26,  1909. 

Docket  Nos.  1310,  1313,  1328.     Op.  1108.     Clements,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  their  class  rates  from  New 
Orleans,  La.,  to  Mobile,  Ala.,  and  Pensacola,  Fla.,  on  the  ground  that  the 
present  rates  are  unreasonable. 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
184  Fed.  118. 

C.  C.  W.  D.  Ky. 

Preliminary  injunction  against  enforcement  of  Commission's  order  denied. 
Bill  to  annul  Commission's  order  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
195  Fed.  541.     February  28,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  4.    Archbald,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  invalid  on  the  ground  that  there  was  no  basis  for 
the  Commission  to  hold  that  the  existing  rates  are  unreasonable. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 

227  TJ.  S.  88.     January  20,  1913.     Lamar,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  .to  be  valid  in  all  respects. 


62 

STBEET  RAILWAY  CASE. 

West  End  Improvement  Club  v.  Omaha  &  Council  Bluffs  Ry.  &  Bridge  Co. 
17  I.  C.  C.  239.     November  27,  1909. 

Docket  No.  1004.    Op.  1109.     Clark,  Comr. 

Street  railway  company  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  passenger 
rates  between  Omaha,  Nebr.,  and  Council  Bluffs,  Iowa,  on  the  ground  that 
such  rates  were  unreasonable. 

Omaha  &  Council  Bluffs  Street  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
179  Fed.  243.     April  25,  1910.     (See  24th  Ann.  Rep.,  21.) 

C.  C.  D.  Nebr.    Per  curiam. 

Enforcement  of  Commission's  order  temporarily  enjoined  pending  determina- 
tion of  case  by  Commerce  Court.  Case  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

Omaha  &  Council  Bluffs  Street  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
191  Fed.  40.     October  5,  1911. 

Commerce  Court  No.  25.     Mack,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  on  the  ground  that  interstate  street  rail- 
way companies  are  subject  to  the  act. 

Omaha  &  Council  Bluffs  Street  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

222  TT.  S.  582.     November  6,  1911.    Per  curiam. 

Enforcement  of  Commission's  order  enjoined  pending  final  determination  of 
the  case. 

Omaha  &  Council  Bluffs  Street  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

230  TT.  S.  324.    June  9,  1913.     Lamar,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  the  Commission  has 
no  jurisdiction  over  interstate  street  railways. 


BOSTON    SHOE    CASE, 

Kiser  Co.  v.  Central  of  Georgia  Ry.  Co. 
17  I.  C.  C.  430.     November  27,  1909. 

Docket  No.  1733.     Op.  1127.     Clements,   Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  the  rate  on  shoes  and  boots 
from  Boston,  Mass.,  and  New  York  City  to  Atlanta,  Ga.,  on  the  ground  that  the 
existing  rates  are  unreasonable. 

Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  R.  Co.  v .  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
C.  C.  E.  D.  Va. 
Bill  to  annul  Commission's  order  transferrd  to  Commerce  Court 

Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

194  Fed.  449;  1  Com.  Ct.  255.     December  5,  1911. 
Commerce  Court  No.  3.     Carland,  J. 
Commission's  motion  to  dismiss  bill  attacking  Commission's  order  denied. 

Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  reported.     June  4,  1912. 
Commerce  Court  No.  3. 
Case  dismissed  without  prejudice  upon  motion  of  petitioning  carrier. 


63 

SLEEPING  CAB  CASE. 

Loftus  v.  Pullman  Co. 

18  I.  C.  C.  135.     March  15,  1910. 

Docket  Nos.  1084,  1085,  and  1086.     Op.  1199.    Lane,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  their  charges  for  the  use  of  berths  in  sleeping 
cars  between  St.  Paul,  Minn.,  and  other  points  on  the  ground  that  the  existing 
charges  are  unreasonable. 

Loftus  v.  Pullman  Co. 

19  I.  C.  C.  102.     June  20,  1910. 

Docket  Nos.  1084,  1085,  and  1086.    Op.  1346.    By  the  Commission. 
Rehearing  granted!. 

Pullman  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  reported.     July  8,  1910. 
C.  C.  N.  D.  111. 
Temporary  injunction  granted. 

Loftus  v.  Pullman  Co. 

20  I.  C.  C.  21.    December  12,  1910. 
Docket  Nos.  1084,  1085,  and  1086.     Op.  1450. 
Upon  rehearing,  former  order  modified. 

Pullman  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
Great  Northern  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  reported.     May  23,  1911. 
C.  C.  N.  D.  111.,  E.  D. 
Dismissed  on  motion  of  plaintiffs. 


LOS   ANGELES    SWITCHING    CASE. 

Associated  Jobbers  of  Los  Angeles  v.  Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Oo. 
18  I.  C.  C.  310.  April  5,  1910.  (See  25th  Ann.  Rep.,  56.) 

Docket  No.  1704.     Op.  1251.     Lane,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  discontinue  their  present  charge  of  $2.50  per  car  and  in 
the  future  refrain  from  imposing  any  charge  for'  delivering  and  receiving  car- 
load freight  to  and  from  industries  located  upon  spurs  and  sidetracks  within 
their  respective  switching  limits  at  Los  Angeles,  Cal.,  when  such  carload 
freight  is  moving  in  interstate  commerce  incidentally  to  a  system-line  haul. 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
C.  C.  D.  Kans.,  1st  D. 
Bill  by  carriers  to  annul  Commission's  order  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
188  Fed.  229.     July  20,  1911. 

Commerce  Court  No.  2.1    Carland,  J. 

Enforcement  of  Commission's  order  temporarily  enjoined  on  the  ground  that 
the  carriers  have  a  right  to  impose  a  charge  for  this  special  service. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co. 

234  TT.  S.  294.     June  8,  1914.     Hughes,  J. 

Decree  of  Commerce  Court  reversed  and  cause  remanded  to  district  court 
with  instructions  to  dismiss  the  bill. 

1  Record  transferred  to  District  Court  for  the  Northern  District  of  California  upon 
dissolution  of  Commerce  Court. 


64 

SAN  FRANCISCO  SWITCHING  CASK. 

Pacific  Coast  Jobbers  &  Mfrs.  Asso.  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 

181.  C.  C.  333.     April  11,  1910.     (See  25th  Ann.  Hep.,  56.) 

Docket  No.  1649.    Op.  1252.     Lane,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  discontinue  their  present  charge  of  $2.50  per  car,  and 
In  the  future  refrain  from  imposing  any  charge  for  delivering  and  receiving 
carload  freight  to  and  from  industries  located  upon  spurs  and  sidetracks  within 
their  respective  switching  limits  at  San  Francisco,  Cal.,  when  such  carload 
freight  is  moving  in  interstate  commerce  incidentally  to  a  system-line  haul. 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
C.  C.  D.  Kans.,  1st  D. 
Bill  by  carriers  to  annul  Commission's  order  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
188  Fed.  241.     July  20,  1911. 

Commerce  Court  No.  I.1    Garland,  J. 

Enforcement  of  Commission's  order  temporarily  enjoined  on  the  ground  that 
the  carriers  have  a  right  to  impose  a  charge  for  this  special  switching  service. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 

234  TT.  S.  315.     June  8,  1914.     Hughes,  J. 

Decree  of  Commerce  Court  reversed  and  cause  remanded  to  district  court 
with  instructions  to  dismiss  the  bill. 


HOOKEB    &    WILLIAMSON    CASE. 

Receivers  &  Shippers  Asso.  of  Cincinnati  v.  Cincinnati,  New  Orleans  &  Texas 

Pacific  Ry.   Co. 

18 1.  C.  C.  440.     February  17,  1910. 

Docket  No.  1542.     Op.  1283.     Prouty,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  their  class  rates  from  Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio,  to  Chattanooga,  Tenn.,  on  the  ground  that  existing  rates  are 
unreasonable.  The  reduced  rates  prescribed  by  the  Commission  were  not  as 
low  as  those  contended  for  by  the  shippers. 

Hooker  &  Williamson  v.  Knapp. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  Ohio. 

Bill  of  shippers  to  annul  Commission's  order  on  the  ground  that  the  maxi- 
mum rates  fixed  by  said  order  are  so  much  too  high  and  extortionate  as  to 
violate  the  fifth  amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution,  transferred  to  Com- 
merce Court. 

Hooker  &  Williamson  v.  Knapp. 

188  Fed.  242;  1  Com.  Ct.  33.     July  20,  1911. 
Commerce  Court  No.  5.     Garland,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  and  case  dismissed  on  merits. 

1  Record  transferred  to  District  Court  for  the  Northern  District  of  California  upon 
dissolution  of  Commerce  Court. 


65 

Hooker  v.  Knapp. 

225  TJ.  S.  302.     June  7,  1912.     White,  C.  J. 

Held  that  Commerce  Court  has  no  jurisdiction  of  such  a  case  us  this,  where 
the  petitioner  complains  of  a  denial  of  relief  at  the  hands  of  the  Commission ; 
but  that  such  court  has  jurisdiction  only  of  affirmative  orders  of  the  Commis- 
sion. 


EAGLE   WHITE  LEAD   CASE. 

Receivers  &  'Shippers  Asso.  of  Cincinnati  v.  Cincinnati,  New  Orleans  &  Texas 

Pacific  Ry.  Co. 

18  I.  C.  C.  440.     February  17,  1910. 

Docket  No.  1542.     Op.  1283.     Prouty,   Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  their  class  rates  from  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  to  Chat- 
tanooga, Tenn.,  on  the  ground  that  existing  rates  are  unreasonable.  Th6  re- 
duced rates  prescribed  by  the  Commission  were  not  as  low  as  those  contended 
for  by  the  shippers. 

Eagle  White  Lead  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  Ohio. 

Bill  of  shippers  to  annul  Commission's  order  on  the  ground  that  the  maximum 
rates  fixed  by  said  order  are  so  much  too  high  and  extortionate  as  to  violate 
the  fifth  amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution,  transferred  to  Commerce 
Court. 

Eagle  White  Lead  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

188  Fed.  256;  1  Com.  Ct.  65.     July  20,  1911. 
Commerce  Court  No.  6.     Garland,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  and  case  dismissed  on  merits. 

Eagle  White  Lead  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

225  IT.  S.  302.     June  7,  1912.     White,  C.  J. 

Held  that  Commerce  Court  has  no  jurisdiction  of  such  a  case  as  this,  where 
the  petitioner  complains  of  a  denial  of  relief  at  the  hands  of  the  Commission; 
but  that  such  court  has  jurisdiction  only  of  affirmative  orders  of  the  Commis- 
sion. 


ALASKA    CASE. 

Huinboldt  Steamship  Co.  v.  White  Pass  &  Yukon  Route. 
19  I.  C.  C.  105.     June  6,  1910. 

Docket  No.  2518.     Op.  1347.     Kmipp,  Comr. 

Complaint  seeking  establishment  of  through  routes  and  joint  rates  in  con- 
nection with  complainant  steamship  line,  from  Seattle,  Wash.,  to  points  in 
Alaska,  dismissed  on  the  ground  that  the  Commission  has  no  jurisdiction  over 
carriers  operating  in  Alaska. 

United  States  ex  rel.  Humboldt  Steamship  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission. 

Not  reported.     January  6,  1911. 
Sup.  Ct.  D.  C.     Barnard,  J. 
Petition  for  writ  of  mandamus  to  compel  Commission  to  take  jurisdiction  of 

carriers  in  Alaska,  denied. 

58069—14 5 


66 

United  States  ex  rel.  Humboldt  Steamship  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission. 

37  Apps.  D.  C.  266.     May  24,  1911. 
C.  C.  Apps.  D.  C.     Van  Orsdel,  J. 
Lower  court  reversed  with  directions  to  issue  a  writ  of  mandamus  compelling 

Commission  to  take  jurisdiction  and  determine  the  case. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  United  States  ex  rel.  Humboldt  Steam- 
ship Co. 

224  U.  S.  474.     April  29,  1912.     (See  26th  Ann.  Rep.,  31.)     McKenna,  J. 
Held  that  Commission  has  jurisdiction  of  carriers  operating  in 'Alaska.    De- 
cree of  court  of  appeals  affirmed. 

Humboldt  Steamship  Co.  v .  White  Pass  &  Yukon  Route. 
25  I.  C.  C.  136.     November  11,  1912. 

Docket  No.  2518.    Op.  2044.     Clark,  Comr. 

No  order  entered  on  petition  for  through  routes  and  joint  rates,  defendants 
having  granted  relief  sought. 


SOUTHERN  LUMBER  CASE — OMAHA. 

Commercial  Club  of  Omaha  v.  Anderson  &  Saline  River  Ry.  Co. 

18  I.  C.  C.  532.     June  2,  1910. 

Docket  No.  3056.    Op.  1302.    Clark,  Comr. 

Carriers  orders  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  their  advanced  rates  on 
lumber  from  southern  producing  territory  to  Omaha,  Nebr.,  and  other  points,  on 
the  ground  that  such  advanced  rates  were  unreasonable.  Reparation  to  be 
awarded. 

Commercial  Club  of  Omaha  v.  Anderson  &  Saline  River  Ry.  Co. 

19  I.  C.  C.  419.     October  10,  1910. 
Docket  No.  3056.    Op.  1389.    Clark,  Comr. 
Petition  for  rehearing  denied. 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 

Not  reported.     April  9,  1912. 
Commerce  Court  No.  36. 
Case  dismissed  by  stipulation. 

Commercial  Club  of  Omaha  v.  Anderson  &  Saline  River  Ry.  Co. 

27  I.  C.  C.  302.     June  5,  1913. 
Docket  No.  3056.    Op.  2351.    Clark,  Comr. 
Reparation  awarded  on  basis  of  findings  in  original  report. 


LEMON   CASE. 

Arlington  Heights  Fruit  Co.  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 
175  Fed.  141.     November  22,  1909. 

C.  C.  S.  D.  Cal.    Morrow,  J. 

Pending  determination  by  the  Commission  of  the  reasonableness  of  such  rate, 
defendant  carriers  were  enjoined  from  putting  into  effect  a  proposed  advanced 
rate  on  lemons  from  California  to  the  East. 


67 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  Arlington  Heights  Fruit  Co. 
191  Fed.  101.     October  9,  1911. 

C.  C.  A.  9th  Cir.    Wolvertori,  J. 

Lower  court  reversed  on  the  ground  that  the  suit  was  not  brought  in  the 
proper  district. 

Arlington  Heights  Fruit  Exchange  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 
19  I.  C.  C.  148.     June  11,  1910.     (See  25th  Ann.  Rep.,  57.) 

Docket  No.  3000.    Prouty,  Convr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  the  advanced  rate  to  the  basis  of  the  former  rate 
on  the  ground  that  the  advanced  rate  is  unreasonable. 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
182  Fed.  189.     October  27,  1910. 

C.  C.  D.  Kans.,  1st  D.    Per  curiam. 

Pending  determination  of  case  by  Commerce  Court,  enforcement  of  Commis- 
sion's order  enjoined.  Case  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
190  Fed.  591;  1  Com.  Ct.  83.     October  5,  1911. 

Commerce  Court  No.  7.1    Mack,  /. 

Commission's  order  held  invalid  on  the  ground  that  it  was  based  primarily 
on  the  assumed  authority  to  protect  the  lemon  industry  of  this  country  against 
foreign  competition.  The  Commission,  it  was  held,  is  vested  with  no  such 
authority. 

Arlington  Heights  Fruit  Exchange  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 
22  I.  C.  C.  149.     December  11,  1911. 

Docket  No.  3000.    Op.  1715.    Prouty,  Comr. 

Disclaiming  any  authority  to  attempt  to  exercise  an  authority  to  reduce 
rates  to  protect  the  domestic  industry  against  foreign  competition,  the  Com- 
mission again  ordered  the  carriers  to  reduce  the  advanced  rate  to  the  basis  of 
the  former  rate  on  the  ground  that  the  advanced  rate  is  unreasonable. 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 

203  Fed.  56.     February  26,  1913. 
Commerce  Court  No.  61.1    Mack,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid. 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 

231  TT.  S.  736.     November  3,  1913.     Per  curiam. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid. 


INTEBMOUNTAIN   CASES — EENO. 

Railroad  Commission  of  Nevada  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 

19  I.  C.  C.  238.     June  6,  1910.     (See  25th  Ann.  Rep.,  27.) 

Docket  No.  1665.     Op.  1365.    Lane,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  their  class  rates  from  east- 
ern defined  territory  to  Reno  and  other  Nevada  points  on  the  ground  that  the 
existing  rates  are  unreasonable  as  compared  with  lower  rates  for  the  longer 
haul  to  Pacific  coast  points. 

1No.  7  was  reinstated  as  No.  61. 


68 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
C.  C.  N.  D.  Gal. 
Bill  to  annul  Commission's  order  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  reported.     April  18,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  33.  j 

Case  dismissed  without  opinion. 

Jn  re  Applications  for  Relief  under  the  Fourth  Section.    Nos.  205,  342,  343,  344, 

349,  350,  and  352. 

Railroad  Commission  of  Nevada  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 
Maricopa  County  Commercial  Club  v.  Santa  Fe,  Prescott  &  Phoenix  Ry.  Co. 
2f  I.  C.  C.  329.     June  22,  1911. 

Docket  Nos.  1665  and  1796.    Op.  1623.    Lane,  Comr. 

For  the  purpose  of  this  case  the  Commission  established  certain  rate  zones 
and  ordered  the  carriers  to  desist  from  charging,  for  the  haul  to  Reno  and 
other  Nevada  points,  any  commodity  rates  which  are  higher,  by  a  specified  per- 
cent, than  the  rates  to  Pacific  coast  points,  on  the  ground  that  the  existing 
rates  are  in  violation  of  section  4  of  the  act  as  amended  June  IS,  1910. 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
191  Fed.  856.     November  14,  1911. 

Commerce  Court  No.  50.     Mack,  J. 

Section  4  of  the  act  as  amended  June  18,  1910,  held  to  be  constitutional,  but 
enforcement  of  Commission's  order  temporarily  enjoined  on  the  ground  that 
the  Commission  is  without  authority  to  determine  the  relation  of  long  and  short 
haul  rates,  irrespective  of  absolute  rates. 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
Not  reported.     December  9,  1911. 

Commerce  Court  No.  50. 

Enforcement  of  Commission's  order  permanently  enjoined  for  the  reasons 
stated  upon  the  issuance  of  the  temporary  injunction.  No  written  opinion. 

fn  re  Applications  for  Relief  under  the  Fourth  Section.     Nos.  205,  342,  343,  344, 

349,  350,  and  352. 

Railroad  Commission  of  Nevada  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 
Maricopa  County  Commercial  Club  v.  Santa  Fe,  Prescott  &  Phoenix  Ry.  Co. 
23  I.  C'.  C.  456.     May  15,  1912. 

Docket  Nos.  1665  and  1796.    Op.  1875.    Lane,  Comr. 

Carriers  permitted  to  put  into  effect  a  proposed  schedule  of  reduced  com- 
modity rates  pending  final  determination  of  the  case  by  the  Supreme  Court. 

United  States  v.  Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co. 

234  TJ.  S.  476.     June  22,  1914.     White,  C.  J. 

Decree  of  Commerce  Court  reversed.  Case  remanded  to  district  court  with 
directions  to  dismiss  bill  for  want  of  equity. 


69 

INTERMOUNTAIN    CASE — PHOENIX. 

Maricopa  County  Commercial  Club  v.  Santa  Fe,  Prescott  &  Phoenix  Ry.  Co. 
19  I  .p.  C.  257.     June  6,  1910.     (See  25th  Ann.  Rep.,  27.) 

Docket  No.  1796.     Op.  1366.     Lane,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered,  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  their  class  rates  from  eastern 
defined  territory  to  Phoenix,  Ariz.,  on  the  ground  that  the  existing  rates  are 
unreasonable  as  compared  with  lower  rates  for  the  longer  haul  to  Pacific  coast 
points. 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
C.  C.  K  D.  Gal. 
Bill  to  annul  Commission's  order  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  reported.     April  18,  1912. 
Commerce  Court  No.  34. 
Case  dismissed  without  opinion. 

In  re  Applications  for  Relief  under  the  Fourth  Section.    Nos.  205,  342,  343,  344, 

349,  350,  and  352. 

Railroad  Commission  of  Nevada  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 
Maricopa  County  Commercial  Club  v.  Santa  Fe,  Prescott  &  Phoenix  Ry.  Co. 
21  I.  C.  C.  329.     June  22,  1911. 

Docket  Nos.  1665  and  1796.      Op.  1623.     Lane,  Comr. 

For  the  purpose  of  this  case  the  Commission  established  certain  rate  zones 
and  ordered  the  carriers  to  desist  from  charging,  for  the  short  haul  to  Phoenix, 
any  commodity  rates  which  are  higher  by  a  specified  per  cent  than  the  rates  to 
Pacific  coast  points,  on  the  ground  that  the  existing  rates  are  in  violation  of 
section  4  of  the  act  as  amended  June  18,  1910. 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
191  Fed.  856.     November  14,  1911. 

Commerce  Court  No.  50.     Mack,  J. 

Section  4  of  the  act  as  amended  June  18,  1910,  held  to  be  constitutional;  but 
enforcement  of  Commission's  order  temporarily  enjoined  on  the  ground 
that  the  Commission  is  without  authority  to  determine  tne  relation  of  long  and 
short  haul  rates,  irrespective  of  absolute  rates. 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
Not  reported.    December  9,  1911. 

Commerce  Court  No.  50. 

Enforcement  of  Commission's  order  permanently  enjoined  for  the  reasons 
stated  upon  the  issuance  of  the  temporary  injunction.  No  written  opinion. 

In  re  Applications  for  Relief  under  the  Fourth  Section.    Nos.  205,  342,  343,  344. 

349,  350,  and  352. 

Railroad  Commission  of  Nevada  v.  Southern  -Pacific  Co. 
Maricopa  County  Commercial  Club  v.  Santa  Fe,  Prescott  &  Phoenix  Ry.  Co. 
23  I.  C.  C.  456.     May  15,  1912. 

Docket  Nos.  1665  and  1796.     Op.  1875.     Lane,  Comr. 

Carriers  permitted  to  put  into  effect  a  proposed  schedule  of  reduced  com* 
modity  rates,  pending  final  determination  of  the  case  by  the  Supreme  Court. 

United  States  v.  Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co. 

234  TT.  S.  476.     June  22,  1914.     White,  C.  J. 

Decree  of  Commerce  Court  reversed.  Case  remanded  to  district  court  with 
directions  to  dismiss  bill  for  want  of  equity. 


70 

1NTEBMOUNTAIN    CASE — SALT    LAKE. 

Commercial  Club,   Traffic  Bureau  of  Salt  Lake  City  t?.  Atchison,  Topeka  & 

Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co. 

19  I.  C.  C.  218.     June  7,  1910.     (See  25th  Ann.  Rep.,  27.) 

Docket  No.  2662.     Op.  1364.     Prouty,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  certain  rates  to  and  from 
Salt  Lake  City  and  other  Utah  points  on  the  ground  that  the  existing  rates 
were  unreasonable.  Rates  from  the  East  to  Utah  points  held  to  be  unreason- 
able as  compared  with  rates  to  the  Pacific  coast.  Reduction  recommended,  but 
no  order  entered. 

In  re  Applications  for  Relief  under  the  Fourth  Section.    Nos.  205,  342,  343,  344, 

349,  350,  and  352. 

City  of  Spokane  v.  Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 
Commercial  Club,  Traffic  Bureau  of  Salt  Lake  City  v.  Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa 

Fe  Ry.  Co. 
21  I.  C.  C.  400.     June  22,  1911. 

Docket  No.  879  and  2662.     Op.  1627.     Prouty,  Comr. 

For  the  purposes  of  this  case  the  Commission  divided  the  country  into  five 
rate  zones  and  ordered  the  carriers  to  desist  from  charging  for  the  short  haul 
to  Utah  points  any  rates  which  are  higher,  by  a  specified  per  cent,  than  the 
rates  to  Pacific  coast  points,  on  the  ground  that  the  existing  rates  are  in  viola- 
tion of  section  4  of  the  act  as  amended  June  18,  1910. 

Denver  &  Rio  Grande  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
Not  reported.     October  27,  1911. 

Commerce  Court  No.   52. 

Carriers'  application  for  a  temporary  injunction  against  enforcement  of  Com- 
mission's order  denied.  Record  transferred  to  District  Court,  District  of  Col- 
orado. 


INTERMOUNTAIN    CASE — SPOKANE. 

City  of  Spokane  v.  Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 

19  I.  C.  C.  162.     June  7,  1910.     (See  25th  Ann.  Rep.,  27.) 

Docket  No.  879.     Op.  1363.     Prouty,  Comr 

Rates  from  the  east  to  Spokane,  Wash.,  and  other  points  held  to  be  unrea- 
sonable as  compared  with  lower  rates  to  Pacific  coast  points.  Certain  reduced 
rates  recommended,  but  no  order  entered. 

In  re  Applications  for  Relief  under  the  Fourth  Section.     Nos.  205,  342,  343,  344, 

349,  350,  and  352. 

City  of  Spokane  v.  Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 
Commercial  Club,  Traffic  Bureau,  of  Salt  Lake  City  v.  Atchison,  Topeka,  &  Santa 

Fe  Ry.  Co. 

21  I.  C.  C.  400.     June  22,  1911. 

Docket  Nos.  879  and  26(52.     Op.  1627.     Prouty,  Comr. 

For  the  purposes  of  this  case,  the  Commission  divided  the  country  into  five 
rate  zones,  and  ordered  the  carriers  to  desist  from  charging,  for  the  short  haul 
to  Spokane,  Wash.,  and  other  points,  any  rates  which  are  higher,  by  a  specified 
per  cent,  than  the  rates  to  Pacific  coast  points,  on  the  ground  that  the  existing 
rates  are  in  violation  of  section  4  of  the  act  as  amended  June  18,  1910. 


71 

Union  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
191  Fed.  856.     November  14,  1911. 

Commerce  Court  No.  51.     Mack,  J. 

Section  4  of  the  act  as  amended  June  18,  1910,  held  to  be  constitutional ;  but 
the  enforcement  of  the  Commission's  order  was  temporarily  enjoined  on  the 
ground  that  the  Commission  is  without  authority  to  determine  the  relation  of 
long  and  short  haul  rates,  irrespective  of  absolute  rates. 

Union  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
Not  reported.     December  9,  1911. 

Commerce  Court  No.  51.1 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  for  the  reasons  stated  upon  the  issuance 
of  the  temporary  injunction.  No  written  opinion. 

City  of  Spokane  v.  Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 
23  I.  C.  C.  454.     May  14,  1912. 

Docket  No.  879.     Op.  1874.     Prouty,  Comr. 

Commission  declined  to  accept  changes  proposed  in  rates  involved  herein  and 
will  take  no  further  action  until  final  determination  of  case  by  Supreme  Court. 

United  States  v.  Union  Pacific  R.  R.  Co. 

234  U.  S.  495.     June  22,  1914.     White,  C.  J. 

Decree  of  Commerce  Court  reversed.  Case  remanded  to  district  court  with 
directions  to  dismiss  bill  for  want  of  equity. 


SACRAMENTO    RATE    CASE. 

Traffic  Bureau  of  Merchants'  Exchange  of  San  Francisco  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 
19  I.  C.  C.  259.  June  6,  1910. 

Docket  No.  2839.     Op.  1367.     Lane,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  their  class  rates  from  Sacra- 
mento, Cal.,  to  points  upon  the  main  line  of  the  Southern  Pacific  road  between 
Reno,  Nev.,  and  Cecil  Junction,  Utah,  on  the  ground  that  existing  rates  are 
unreasonable. 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
C.  C.  N.  D.  Cal. 
Bill  to  annul  Commission's  order  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.^nterstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  reported.     April  18,  1912. 
Commerce  Court  No.  32. 
Case  dismissed  without  opinion. 


CAR   DISTRIBUTION    CASE. 

Hillsdale  Coal  &  Coke  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co. 
19  I.  C.  C.  356.     March  7,  1910. 

Docket  No.  1063.     Op.  1383.     Harlan,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  discontinue  their  existing  practice  of  distributing  coal 
cars  in  times  of  car  shortage  on  the  ground  that  it  is  unjustly  discriminatory 
to  fail  to  count  company  fuel  cars,  foreign  railway  cars,  and  private  cars 
against  the  quota  of  the  mine  receiving  such  cars.  Question  of  reparation  re- 
served for  further  consideration. 

1  Record  forwarded  to  District  Court  for  the  District  of  Kansas  upon  dissolution  of 
Commerce  Court. 


72 

Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
0.  C.  B.  D.  Pa. 
Bill  to  annul  Commission's  order  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

193  Fed.  81.     December  5,  1911. 
Commerce  Court  No.  31.1    Knapp,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid. 

Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 

Not  yet   reported.     Oct.   13,   1914.     Dismissed   by    Supreme   Court   United 
States  upon  motion  of  petitioner. 

Hillsdale  Coal  &  Coke  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co. 

Jacoby  &  Co.  v.  Same. 

Clark  Bros.  Coal  Mining  Co.  v.  Same. 

Bulah  Coal  Co.  v.  Same. 

23  I.  C.  C.  186.     March  11,  1912. 

Docket  Nos.  1063,  1139,  1111,  1136,  and  1137.     Op.  1833.     Harlan,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  pay  to  complainants  general  damages  (as  distinguished 
from  rate  damages)  on  account  of  the  discrimination  in  car  distribution. 

Jacoby  v.  Pennsylvania  Co. 

200  Fed.  989.     November  12,  1912. 
D.  C.  E.  D.  Pa.     Thompson,  J. 
Commission's  order  awarding  general  damages  held  to  be  valid. 


WINSTON-SALEM   CASE. 
% 

Corporation  Commission  of  North  Carolina  v.  Norfolk  &  Western  Ry.  Co. 
19  I.  C.  C.  303.     June  7,  1910. 

Docket  No.  1389.    Op.  1375.    Clements,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  their  class  rates  from  vari- 
ous points  of  origin  to  Winston-Salem  and  Durham,  N.  C.,  on  the  ground  that 
the  existing  rates  are  unreasonable. 

•, 
Norfolk  &  Western  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 

195  Fed.  953;  1  Com.  Ct.  413.     April  9,  1912. 
Commerce  Court  No.  40.     Hunt,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  in  all  respects. 


REPORTS  OF  WATER  CARRIERS. 

In  re  Reports  of  Water  Carriers. 

Commission  Special  Report  Series,  Circular  No.  10.    June  11,  1910. 
Water  carriers  ordered  to  file  reports.     ( See  25th  Ann.  Rep.,  74. ) 

Goodrich  Transit  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
C.  C.  N.  D.  111.,  E.  D. 
Bill  to  annul  Commission's  order  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

1  Record  transferred  to  District  Court  for  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania  upon 
dissolution  of  Commerce  Court. 


73 

Goodrich  Transit  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
190  Fed.  943;  1  Com.  Ct.  95.     October  5,  1911. 

Commerce  Court  No.  21.    Hunt,  J. 

Commission's  order  annuled  in  so  far  as  the  reports  called  for  and  the  ac- 
counting rules  prescribed  extend  beyond  the  interstate  business  of  the  carriers 
or  include  matters  of  intrastate  traffic  accounts  and  affairs  and  concerns  ex- 
clusively. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Goodrich  Transit  Co. 

224  TT.  S.  194.     April  1,  1912.     Day,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  in  all  respects. 


REPORTS  OF  WATER  CARRIERS. 

In  re  Reports  of  Water  Carriers. 

Orders  entered  relative  to  "  Classification  of  Operating  Revenues  of  Carriers 
by  Water  "  and  "  Classification  of  Operating  Expenses  of  Carriers  by  Water." 
May  31,  1910. 

Goodrich  Transit  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
O.  C.  N.  D.  111.,  E.  D. 
Bill  to  annul  Commission's  order  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

Goodrich  Transit  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
190  Fed.  943;  1  Com.  Ct.  95.     October  5,  1911. 

Commerce  Court  No.  22.    Hunt,  J. 

Commission's  order  annuled  in  so  far  as  the  reports  called  for  and  the  ac- 
counting rules  prescribed  extend  beyond  the  interstate  business  of  the  carriers 
or  include  matters  of  intrastate  traffic  accounts  and  affairs  and  concerns  ex- 
clusively. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Goodrich  Transit  Co. 

224  TJ.  S.  194.     April  1,  1912.     Day,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  in  all  respects. 


REPORTS   OF  WATER  CARRIERS. 

In  re  Reports  of  Water  Carriers. 

Special  Report  Series,  Circular  No.  10.    June  11,  1910. 
Water  carriers  ordered  to  file  reports.     (25th  Ann.  Rep.,  74.) 

White  Star  Line  v.  United  States. 
C.  C.  N.  D.  111.,  E.  D. 
Bill  to  annul  Commission's  order  transferred  to  Commerce  Court. 

White  Star  Line  v.  United  States. 

190  Fed.  943;  1  Com.  Ct.  95.     October  5,  1911. 

Commerce  Court  No.  23.     Hunt,  J. 

Commission's  order  annuled  in  so  far  as  the  reports  called  for  and  the  ac- 
counting rules  prescribed  extend  beyond  the  interstate  business  of  the  carriers 
or  include  matters  of  intrastate  traffic  accounts  and  affairs  and  concerns. 


United  States  v.  White  Star  Line. 

224  TJ.  S.  194.     April  1,  1912.     Day,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  in  all  respects. 


REPORTS  OF   WATER  CARRIERS. 

In  re  Reports  of  Water  Carriers. 

Orders  entered  relative  to  "  Classification  of  Operating  Revenues  of  Carriers 
by  Water  "  and  "  Classification  of  Operating  Expenses  of  Carriers  by  Water." 

May  31,  1910. 

White  Star  Line  v.  United  States. 

190  Fed.  943;  1  Com.  Ct.  95.     October  5,  1911. 

Commerce  Court  No.  24.     Hunt,  J. 

Commission's  order  annuled  in  so  far  as  the  reports  called  for  and  the  ac- 
counting rules  prescribed  extend  beyond  the  interstate  business  of  the  carriers 
or  include  matters  of  intrastate  traffic  accounts  and  affairs  and  concerns  ex- 
clusively. 

United  States  v.  White  Star  Line. 

224  TJ.  S.  194.     April  1,  1912.     Day,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  in  all  respects. 


PRIVATE   CAR   DEMURRAGE    CASE. 

Procter  &  Gamble  Co.  v.  Cincinnati,  Hamilton  &  Dayton  Ry.  Co. 
19  I.  C.  C.  556.     November  14,  1910.     (26th  Ann.  Rep.,  23.) 

Docket  No.  3208.     Op.  1427.     Clark,  Comr. 

Imposition  of  demurrage  on  private  cars  standing  on  private  tracks  held  to 
be  proper.  Complaint,  attacking  this  practice  as  unreasonable,  dismissed. 

Procter  &  Gamble  v.  United  States. 

188  Fed.  221.     July  20,  1911. 
Commerce  Court  No.  9.    Archbald,  J. 
Commission's  action  in  denying  relief  affirmed  on  the  merits. 

Procter  &  Gamble  Co.  v.  United  States. 

225  TT.  S.  282.     June  7,  1912.     White,  J. 

Held  that  Commerce  Court  has  no  jurisdiction  of  such  a  case  as  this,  where 
the  petitioner  complains  of  a  denial  of  relief  at  the  hands  of  the  Commission ; 
but  that  such  court  has  jurisdiction  only  of  affirmative  orders  of  the  Com- 
mission. 


COKE   DUAL    RATE    CASE. 

Anaconda  Copper  Mining  Co.  v.  Chicago  &  Erie  R.  R.  Co. 
19  I.  C.  C.  592.     December  12,  1910. 

Docket  No.  2386.     Op.  1440.     Cockrell,  Comr. 

From  West  Virginia  ovens  to  Chicago,  111.,  defendants  charged  complainant 
a  higher  rate  on  its  coke  for  use  in  smelting  copper  than  was  charged  on  other 
coke  for  blast-furnace  use.  Held  that  the  rate  charged  complainant  was  not 
unreasonable  or  otherwise  in  violation  of  the  act.  Complaint  dismissed. 


75 

Anaconda  Copper  Mining  Co.  v.  United  States. 

1  Com.  C't.  445.     June  7,  1912. 
Commerce  Court  No.  54.     Carland,  J. 
Commission's  order  of  dismissal  held  to  be  valid. 

Anaconda  Copper  Mining  Co.  v.  United  States. 
Not  reported.     June  29,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  54. 

No  order  having  been  entered  in  accordance  with  decision  of  June  7,  1912, 
order  entered  following  Procter  &  Gamble  v.  U.  S.  (225  U.  S.,  282)  to  the  effect 
that  a  denial  of  relief  by  the  Commission  is  not  an  order  of  which  the  Com- 
merce Court  has  jurisdiction,  case  dismissed  for  want  of  jurisdiction. 


PBECOOLING    CASE. 

Arlington  Heights  Fruit  Exchange  v.  Southern  Pacific  Co. 
20  I.  C.  C.  106.     January  14,  1911. 

Docket  No.  3000.     Op.  1477.     Prouty,   Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  from  $30  to  $7.50  per  car  the  charge  for  precooling 
and  preicing  fruit  transported  from  southern  California  to  the  east,  on  the 
ground  that  the  existing  charge  is  -unreasonable. 

In  re  Precooling  and  Preicing. 
23  I.  C.  C.  267.     April  8,  1912. 

I.  &  S.  Docket  No.  50,  50-C,  and  50-F.     Op.  No.  1851.     Prouty,  Comr. 

After  reducing  the  charge  in  accordance  with  the  Commission's  order,  the 
carriers  filed  tariffs  by  which  the  privilege  of  precooling  and  preicing  was 
abolished  altogether.  The  Commission  thereupon  ordered  the  carriers  to  restore 
the  precooling  and  preicing  privilege  at  the  charge  of  $7.50  per  car. 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 

204  Fed.  647.     March  31,  1913. 
Commerce  Court  No.  41.     Carland,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  in  all  respects. 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 

232  U.  S.  199.     January  26,  1914.     Lamar,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  in  all  respects. 


RESTRICTED   RATE    CASE. 

In  re  Restricted  Rates. 

20  I.  C.  C.  426.     February  24,  1911.     (See  26th  Ann.  Rep.,  29.) 

Docket  No.  3053.     Op.  1519.     Clark,  Comr. 

By  their  tariffs  certain  railroads  provided  a  certain  rate  on  coal  when  for 
railroad  use,  which  rate  was  considerably  lower  than  the  rate  on  commercial 
coal.  Carriers  ordered  to  cease  and  desist  from  maintaining  such  tariffs  or  any 
tariffs  which  contain  rates  applicable  only  upon  shipments  for  particular  con- 
signees or  when  the  commodity  is  for  a  particular  use,  or  any  tariffs  which 
contain  rates  which  are  restricted  to  the  use  of  certain  shippers  and  which 
are  not  open  to  all  shippers  alike. 


76 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.  f.  United  States. 

Not  reported.     May  29,  1911. 
Commerce  Court  No.  39. 
Enforcement  of  Commission's  order  temporarily  enjoined. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co. 

225  IT.  S.  326.     June  7,  1912.     McKenna,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  in  all  respects.  The  court,  however, 
recognized  the  right  of  the  Commerce  Court  to  grant  a  temporary  injunction  in 
a  proper  case. 


CINCINNATI   &   COLUMBUS   TRACTION    CASE. 

Cincinnati  &  Columbus  Traction  Co.  v.  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  R.  R.  Co. 
20  I.  C.  C.  486.  March  14,  1911.  (26th  Ann.  Rep.,  32.) 

Docket  No.  2062.    Op.  1524.    Harlan,  Comr. 

Steam  railroad  companies  directed  to  establish  certain  switch  connections 
with  electrically  operated  interurban  line. 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
195  Fed.  962.     April  9,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  60.    Archbald,  J. 

Enforcement  of  Commission's  order  temporarily  enjoined  on  the  ground  that 
the  Cincinnati  &  Columbus  Traction  Co.  is  not  a  lateral  branch  line  of  railroad. 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
Not  reported.    April  19,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  60. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  stated  upon  the  issuance 
of  the  temporary  injunction. 

United  States  v.  Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  R.  R.  Co. 

226  TT.  S.  14.     November  11,  1912.     Holmes,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  the  Cincinnati  & 
Columbus  Traction  Co.  is  not  a  lateral  branch  line  of  railroad  within  the  mean- 
ing of  section  15. 


INTERNATIONAL  SALT   CASE. 

International  Salt  Co.  of  Illinois  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co. 
20  I.  C.  C.  539.     March  14,  1911. 

Docket  No.  3406.    Op.  1532.    Harlan,  Comr. 

Commission  denied  reparation  to  complainant  on  the  ground  that  complainant 
had  not  shown  itself  to  have  been  damaged. 

International  Salt  Co.  of  Illinois  v.  United  States. 
Not  reported.     June  29,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  66. 

Following  Procter  &  Gamble  v.  U.  S.  (225  U.  S.,  282)  to  the  effect  that  a 
denial  of  relief  by  the  Commission  is  not  an  order  of  which  the  Commission  has 
jurisdiction,  case  dismissed  for  want  of  jurisdiction. 


77 

ANTHRACITE    COAL    CASE. 

Meeker  &  Co.  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co. 
21  I.  C.  C.  129.     June  8,  1911. 

Docket  No.  1180.    Op.  1585.    McChord,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  their  rates  on  various  sizes 
of  anthracite  coal  from  Wyoming  region,  Pennsylvania,  to  Perth  Amboy,  N.  J., 
on  the  ground  that  the  existing  rates  are  unreasonable  and  unjustly  discrimina- 
tory. Reparation  to  be  awarded. 

Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States. 

190  Fed.  1023;  1  Com.  Ct.  163.     October  12,  1911. 

Commerce  Court  No.  49.1    Per  curiam. 

Carriers'  application  for  a  temporary  injunction  against  enforcement  of  Com- 
mission's order  denied. 

Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States. 

204  Fed.  986.     April  25,  1913. 
Commerce  Court  No.  70.1     Hunt,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  in  all  respects. 

Meeker  &  Co.  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co. 

23  I.  C.  C.  480.     May  7,  1912. 

Docket  Nos.  1180  and  3235.    Op.  1880.    McChord,  Comr. 
Reparation  awarded. 

Meeker  &  Co.  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R,  R.  Co. 
Not  reported.     Holland,  J. 

D.  C.  E.  D.  Pa. 

Damages  in  the  sum  of  $109,280.17  awarded  based  on  Commission's  award 
of  reparation. 

Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Meeker. 
211  Fed.  785.     August  27,  1913. 

C.  C.  Apps.  3d  Cir.    Gray,  J. 

Lower  court  reversed  on  the  ground  that  there  was  no  proof  of  damage.  It 
was  held  that  the  report  of  the  Commission  did  contain  a  set  of  findings  of 
facts  within  the  meaning  of  section  16  and  that  it  was  error  for  the  trial  court 
to  submit  to  the  jury  the  entire  report  of  the  Commission  containing  state- 
ments, arguments,  and  opinion.  It  was  further  held  that  section  16  barred  all 
claims  accruing  to  the  shipper  prior  to  July  17,  1905. 

Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Meeker. 

211  Fed.  785,  802.     February  19,  1914. 
C.  C.  Apps.  3d  Cir.     Gray,  J". 
On  rehearing  former  decision  adhered  to. 

Meeker  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co.     (Two  cases.) 
Pending,  Supreme  Court,  United  States. 

1  No.  49  was  reinstated  as  No.  70. 


78 

COKE    CASE. 

St.  Louis  Blast  Furnace  Co.  v.  Virginian  Ry.  Co. 
21  I.  C.  C.  215.     June  19,  1911. 

Docket  Nos.  2804  and  2838.     Op.  1600.     Meyer,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  pay  to  complainant  a  certain  sum  of  money  as  reparation 
for  charging  an  unreasonable  rate  on  coke  from  Deepwater,  W.  Va.,  to 
Carondelet,  Mo. 

Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 

193  Fed.  664;  1  Com.  Ct.  305.     December  5,  1911. 

Commerce  Court  No.  44.     Hunt,  J. 

Authority  conferred  by  Congress  upon  the  Commerce  Court  to  suspend  or 
annul  "  any  order." 

Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 

Not  reported.     January  23,  1912. 
Commerce  Court  No.  44. 
Case  dismissed  on  motion  of  petitioners. 


CHICAGO  PROPORTIONAL  BATE  CASE. 

Rosenbaum  Bros.  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 
22  I.  C.  C.  62.     November  13,  1911. 

Docket  No.  2953.     Op.  1696.    By  the  Commission. 

Carriers  ordered  to  cease  discriminating  against  Chicago  and  Cook  County, 
111.,  junctions  by  charging  higher  proportional  rates  on  coarse  grain  in  carloads 
when  coming  via  Chicago  than  via  other  routes.  Reparation  awarded. 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States. 

Commerce  Court  No.  74. 

Record  transferred  to  District  Court  for  the  Western  District  of  Kentucky 
upon  dissolution  of  Commerce  Court. 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
D.  C.  W.  D.  Ky.     Pending. 


COAL  CREEK  CASE. 

Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Augusta  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co. 
22  I.  C.  C.  233.     January  8,  1912. 

Docket  No.  3328.     Op.  1728.     By  the  Commission. 

Commission  dismissed  complaint  attacking  as  unreasonable  and  unduly 
prejudicial  a  rate  of  $2.10  per  ton  on  coal  from  the  Coal  Creek  mines  in 
Tennessee  to  Augusta,  Ga. 

Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Augusta  v.  United  States. 
197  Fed.  66;  1  Com.  Ct.  477.     June  7,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  65.     Mack,  J. 

Motion  of  respondents  to  dismiss  petition  sustained.  Commission's  order 
held  to  be  valid. 


79 

Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Augusta  v.  United  States. 
Not  reported.     June  29,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  65. 

No  order  having  been  entered  in  pursuance  of  opinion  of  June  7,  1912,  an 
order  was  entered  following  Procter  &  Gamble  v.  U.  S.  (225  U.  S.  282)  to  the 
effect  that  a  denial  of  relief  by  the  Commission  is  not  an  order  of  which  the 
Commerce  Court  has  jurisdiction ;  case  dismissed  for  want  of  jurisdiction. 


O'GABA  COAL  CASE. 

In  re  Advances  on  Bituminous  Coal. 

I.  &  S.  No.  52  and  52-A. 

Elmore-Benjamin  Coal  Co.  v.  Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. 
22  I.  C.  C.  341.     February  5,  1912. 

Docket  No.  4415.     Op.  1751.     Meyer,  Comr. 

Commission  dismissed  complaint  attacking  as  unreasonable  an  advanced  rate 
on  coal  from  Illinois  fields  via  interstate  movement  to  Chicago,  111. 

O'Gara  Coal  Co.  v.  United  States. 
Not  reported.     June  24,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  62. 

Following  Procter  &  Gamble  v.  U.  S.  (225  U.  S.  282)  to  the  effect  that  a 
denial  of  relief  by  the  Commission  is  not  an  order  of  which  the  Commerce 
Court  has  jurisdiction ;  case  dismissed  for  want  of  jurisdiction. 


PORTLAND  FOURTH   SECTION    CASE. 

In  re  Fourth  Section  Application  of  Southern  Pacific  Co. 
22  I.  C.  C.  366.     February  5,  1912. 
24  I.  C.  C.  34.     June  6,  1912. 

Fourth  section  application  No.  1243.  Fourth  section  order  No.  135.  Op. 
Nos.  1758  and  1911.  Lane,  Comr. 

Application  of  carriers  seeking  authority  to  continue  class  rates  between 
Portland,  Oreg.,  and  San  Francisco,  Cal.,  that  are  lower  than  the  rates  con- 
currently in  effect  from,  to,  and  between  certain  intermediate  points,  denied 
.as  to  some  points  and  granted  as  to  certain  other  points. 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  United  States. 

Commerce  Court  No.  88. 

Record  transferred  to  District  Court  for  the  Northern  District  of  California 
upon  dissolution  of  Commerce  Court. 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  United  States. 
D.  C.  N.  D.  Cal. 
Pending. 


ELEVATION    ALLOWANCE    CASE — MISSOURI    RIVER. 

Traffic  Bureau,  Merchants'  Exchange  of  St.  Louis  v.  Chicago,  Burlington  & 

Quincy  R.  R.  Co. 

22  I.  C.  C.  496.     February  5,  1912. 

Docket  Nos.  1239,  1240,  1241,  and  1267.    Op.  1786.    Prouty,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  not  to  exceed  three-fourths  of  one  cent  per  100  pounds  in  the 
payment  of  elevation  or  transfer  allowance  at  the  Missouri  River,  and  to 
confine  that  payment  to  grain  actually  passing  through  the  elevator  in  ten 
days. 


80 


Davis  (Board  of  Trade  of  Kansas  City)  v.  United  States. 

Not  reported.     February  10,  1913. 
Commerce  Court  No.  64. 
Case  dismissed  without  prejudice  in  accordance  with  stipulation. 


MACK  MANUFACTURING  CASE. 

Mack  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Pittsburgh,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. 
22  I.  C.  C.  670.     February  5,  1912. 

Docket  No.  670.    U.  R.  No.  521.    By  the  Commission. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  their  rates  on  brick  from 
Chicago,  111.,  to  New  York  City  on  the  ground  that  such  rates  are  unreasonable ; 
but  reparation  was  denied. 

Mack  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  United  States. 
Not  reported.     June  8,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  69. 

Case  dismissed  without  prejudice  when  Commission  set  aside  its  own  order 
for  the  purpose  of  holding  a  further  hearing  on  the  question  of  reparation. 

Mack  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  Pittsburgh,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co. 
27  I.  C.  C.  727.  May  12,  1913. 

Docket  No.  3814  and  3814-Sub.  No.  1  and  2.  U.  R.  No.  A-242.  By  the  Com- 
mission. 

Former  decision  affirmed.    Reparation  again  denied. 


SHEEVEPOBT  CASE. 

Meredith  (Railroad  Commission  of  Louisiana)  v.  St.  Louis  Southwestern  Ry.  Co. 

23  I.  C.  C.  31.     March  11,  1912. 

Docket  No.  3918.    Op.  1813.    Lane,  Comr.  % 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  their  class  rates  from 
Shreveport,  La.,  to  certain  Texas  points  on  the  ground  that  such  interstate 
rates  are  unreasonable  and  unjustly  discriminatory  as  compared  with  lower 
state  rates  from  Dallas,  Houston,  and  other  cities  within  Texas  to  such  Texas 
points.  Carriers  further  ordered  to  grant  at  Shreveport  certain  concentration 
privileges  relating  to  interstate  cotton  so  long  as  similar  privileges  relating  to 
state  cotton  are  granted  at  Texas  points. 

Houston,  East  &  West  Texas  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 

205  Fed.  391;  1  Com.  Ct.  653.     April  25,  1913. 
Commerce  Court  No.  67.1    Knapp,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid. 

Houston,  East  &  West  Texas  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 

234  U.  S.  342.     June  8,  1914.     Hughes,  J. 
Decree  of  Commerce  Court  affirmed  and  Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid. 

1  Record  transferred  to  District  Court  for  the  Southern  District  of  Texas  upon  dissolu- 
tion of  Commerce  Court. 


81 

SHREVEPORT    CASK. 

Meredith    (Railroad    Commission    of    Louisiana)    v.    St.    Louis    Southwestern 

Ry.  Co. 
23  I.  C.  C.  31.     March  11,  1912. 

Docket  No.  3918.     Op.  1813.     Lane,  Comr. 

Carriers  ordered  to  reduce  to  a  specified  amount  their  class  rates  from 
Shreveport,  La.,  to  certain  Texas  points,  on  the  ground  that  such  interstate 
rates  are  unreasonable  and  unjustly  discriminatory  as  compared  with  lower 
state  rates  from  Dallas,  Houston,  and  other  cities  within  Texas  to  such  Texas 
points.  Carriers  further  ordered  to  grant  at  Shreveport  certain  concentration 
privileges  relating  to  interstate  cotton  so  long  as  similar  privileges  relating  to 
state  cotton  are  granted  at  Texas  points. 

Texas  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 

205  Fed.  380.     April  25,  1913. 
Commerce  Court  No.  68.1     Knapp,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid. 

Texas  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 

234  TJ.  S.  342.     June  8,  1914.     Hughes,  J. 
Decree  of  Commerce  Court  affirmed  and  order  of  Commission  held  to  be  valid. 


TAP   LINE   CASE. 

Tap  Line  Case. 

23  I.  C.  C.  277.     April  23,  1912.     Harlau,  Comr. 
23  I.  C.  C.  549.     May  14,  1912.     By  the  Commission. 
I.  &  S.  Docket  No.  11.     Ops.  1853  and  1898. 

Trunk  lines  held  to  be  justified  in  canceling  divisions  and  allowances  which 
had  been  paid  to  certain  tap  lines,  which  tap  lines,  the  Commission  found, 
were  performing  a  plant-facility  service  and  not  a  common-carrier  service. 

Louisiana  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
Not  reported.     June  29,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  71.2 

Following  Procter  &  Gamble  v.  U.  S.  (225  TJ.  S.,  282)  to  the  effect  that 
a  deninl  of  relief  by  the  Commission  is  not  an  order  of  which  the  Commerce 
Court  has  jurisdiction,  case  dismissed  for  want  of  jurisdiction. 

Tap  Line  Case. 

Not  reported.     October  30,  1912. 

I.  &  S.  Docket  No.  11. 

Trunk  lines  ordered  to  desist  from  paying  any  such  allowance  or  divisions 
to  any  such  tap  line. 

1  Record  transferred  to  District  Court  for  the  Northern  District  of  Texas  upon  dissolu- 
tion of  Commerce  Court. 

2  No.  71  was  reinstated  as  No.  00  after  the  issuance  by  the  Commission  of  its  order  of 
Oct.   30,  1912.     Record  transferred  to  District  Court  for  the  Western  District  of  Loui- 
siana upon  dissolution  of  Commerce  Court. 

58069—14 6 


82 

Louisiana  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
Not  reported.     February  24,  1913. 

Commerce  Court  No.  90.1 

Motion  to  dismiss  for  want  of  jurisdiction,  on  the  ground  that  the  order, 
though  affirmative  in  form,  is  negative  in  substance,  denied. 

Louisiana  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
209  Fed.  244.     November  26,  1913. 

Commerce  Court  No.  90.1    Mack,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid,  as  arbitrary  and  beyond  the  power 
of  the  Commission,  in  so  far  as  it  prohibited  any  allowance  for  switching  less 
than  1,000  feet  or  more  than  3  miles,  and  also  in  so  far  as  it  prohibited  the 
making  of  joint  rates  with  certain  tap  lines,  and  the  payment  of  a  division 
thereof  to  the  tap  lines.  In  so  far  as  the  order  was  negative,  in  dismissing  the 
complaint  filed  to  secure  an  order  compelling  the  reestablishment  of  joint 
rates,  held  that  the  Commerce  Court  is  without  jurisdiction  to  determine  its 
validity. 

United  States  v.  Louisiana  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  Louisiana  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co. 

234  TJ.  S.  1.     May  25,  1914.     Day,  J. 
Judgment  of  Commerce  Court  affirmed. 

Tap  Line  Case. 

31  I.  C.  C.  490.     July  29,  1914. 

I.  &  S.  Docket  No.  11.     Op.  2749.     Harlan,  Comr. 

Original  and  supplemental  orders  denying  allowances  to  certain  tap  lines 
vacated.  Conclusions  announced  in  original  report  respecting  milling  in  transit 
rates  on  logs  adhered  to. 


TAP   LINE   CASE. 

Tap  Line  Case. 

23  I.  C.  C.  277.    April  23,  1912.     Harlan,  Comr. 
23  I.  C.  C.  549.     May  14,  1912.     By  the  Commission. 
I.  &  S.  Docket  No.  11.     Ops.  1853  and  1898. 

Trunk  lines  held  to  be  justified  in  canceling  divisions  and  allowances  which 
had  been  paid  to  certain  tap  lines  operated  in  connection  with  certain  lumber 
industries,  on  the  ground  that  such  tap  lines  are  not  common  carriers  but  are 
performing  a  plant-facility  service. 

Woodworth  &  Louisiana  Central  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
Not  reported.     June  27,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  72.1 

Following  Procter  &  Gamble  v.  U.  S.  (225  U.  S.,  282)  to  the  effect  that  a 
denial  of  relief  by  the  Commission  is  not  an  order  of  which  the  Commerce 
Court  has  jurisdiction,  case  dismissed  for  want  of  jurisdiction. 

1  No.  72  was  reinstated  as  No.  91  after  the  Issuance  by  the  Commission  of  its  order  of 
October  30,  1912.  Record  transferred  to  District  Court  for  the  Western  District  of  Loui- 
siana upon  dissolution  of  Commerce  Court. 


83 


Tap  Line  Case. 

Not  reported.     October  30,  1912. 

I.  &  S.  Docket  No.  11. 

Trunk  lines  ordered  to  desist  from  paying  any  such  allowance  or  division  to 
any  such  tap  line. 

Woodworth  &  Louisiana  Central  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
Not  reported.     February  24,  1913. 

Commerce  Court  No.  91.1 

Motion  to  dismiss  for  want  of  jurisdiction  on  ground  that  the  order,  though 
affirmative  in  form,  is  negative  in  substance,  denied. 

Woodworth  &  Louisiana  Central  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
209  Fed.  244.     November  26,  1913. 

Commerce  Court  No.  91.1    Mack,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid,  as  arbitrary  and  beyondl  the  power 
of  the  Commission,  in  so  far  as  it  prohibited  any  allowance  for  switching  less 
than  1,000  feet  or  more  than  3  miles,  and  also  in  so  far  as  it  prohibited  the 
making  of  joint  rates  with  certain  tap  lines  and  a  payment  of  a  division  thereof 
to  the  tap  line.  In  so  far  as  the  order  was  negative,in  dismissing  the  complaint 
filed  to  secure  an  order  compelling  the  reestablishment  of  joint  rates,  held  that 
the  Commerce  Court  is  without  jurisdiction  to  determine  its  validity. 

United  States  v.  Woodworth  &  Louisiana  Central  Ry.  Co. 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  Woodworth  &  Louisiana  Central  Ry.  Co. 

234  TT.  S.  1.     May  25,  1914.     Day,  J. 
Judgment. of  Commerce  Court  affirmed. 

Tap  Line  Case. 

31  I.  C.  C.  490.     July  29,  1914. 

I.  &  S.  Docket  No.  11.     Op.  2749.     Harlan,  Comr. 

Original  and  supplemental  orders  denying  allowances  to  certain  tap  lines 
vacated.  Conclusions  announced  in  original  report  respecting  milling  in  transit 
rates  on  logs  adhered  to. 


TAP    LINE    CASE. 

Tap  Line  Case. 

23  I.  C.  C.  277.    April  23,  1912.    Harlan,  Comr. 
23  I.  C.  C.  549.     May  14,  1912.    By  the  Commission. 
I.  &  S.  Docket  No.  11.     Op.  1853  and  1898. 

Trunk  lines  held  to  be  justified  in  canceling  divisions  and  allowances  which 
had  been  paid  to  certain  tap  lines,  which  tap  lines,  the  Commission  found,  were 
performing  a  plant-facility  service  and  not  a  common-carrier  service. 

Sibley,  Lake  Bisteneau  &  Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
Not  reported.     June  27,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  73. 

Following  Procter  &  Gamble  v.  U.  S.  (225  U.  S.,  282)  to  the  effect  that  a 
denial  of  relief  by  the  Commission  is  not  an  order  of  which  the  Commerce  Court 
has  jurisdiction,  case  dismissed  for  want  of  jurisdiction. 

Tap  Line  Case. 

Not  reported.     October  30,  1912. 

I.  &  S.  Docket  No.  11. 

Trunk  lines  ordered  to  desist  from  paying  any  such  allowance  or  division  to 
any  such  tap  line. 


. 


84 


Tap  Line  Case. 

Not  reported.     November  10,  1913. 

31  I.  C.  C.  490.     July  29,  1914.     Harlau,  Comr. 
I.  &  S.  Docket  No.  11.     Op.  2749. 
Previous  orders  denying  allowances  vacated. 


TAP  LINE   CASE. 

Tap  Line  Case. 

23  I.  C.  C.  277.     April  23,  1912.     Harlau,  Comr. 
23  I.  C.  C.  549.     May  14,  1912.     By  the  Commission. 
I.  &  S.  Docket  No.  11.     Ops.  1853  and  1S9S. 

Trunk  lines  held  to  be  justified  in  canceling  divisions  and  allowances  which 
had  been  paid  to  certain  tap  lines,  which  tap  lines,  the  Commission  found,  were 
performing  a  plant-facility  service  and  not  a  common-carrier  service. 

Tap  Line  Case. 

Not  reported.     October  30,  1912. 

I.  £  S.  Docket  No.  11. 

Trunk  lines  ordered  to  desist  from  paying  any  such  allowance  or  division  to 
any  such  tap  line. 

Butler  County  E.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
209  Fed.  260.     November  26,  1913. 

Commerce  Court  No.  89.1    Mack,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid,  as  arbitrary  and  beyond  the  power  of 
the  Commission,  in  so  far  as  it  prohibited  any  allowance  for  switching  less  than 
1,000  feet  or  more  than  3  miles,  and  also  in  so  far  as  it  prohibited  the  making 
of  joint  rates  with  certain  tap  lines  and  the  payment  of  a  division  thereof  to 
the  tap  lines.  In  so  far  as  the  order  was  negative,  in  dismissing  the  complaint 
filed  to  secure  an  order  compelling  the  reestablishment  of  joint  rates,  held  that 
the  Commerce  Court  is  without  jurisdiction  to  determine  its  validity. 

United  States  v.  Butler  County  R.  R.  Co. 
234  U.  S.  29.     May  25,  1914.     Day,  J. 

Decree  of  Commerce  Court  affirmed  and  order  of  Commission  held  to  be 
invalid. 

Tap  Line  Case. 

31  I.  C.  C.  490.     July  29,  1914.     Harlan,  Comr. 

I.  &  S.  Docket  No.  11.     Op.  2749. 

Original  and  supplemental  orders  denying  allowances  to  certain  tap  lines 
vacated.  Conclusions  announced  in  the  original  order  respecting  milling  in 
transit  rates  on  logs  adhered  to. 


TAP  LINE  CASE. 

Tap  Line  Case. 

23  I.  C.  C.  277.     April  23,  1912.     Harlan,  Comr. 
23  I.  C.  C.  549.     May  14,  1912.     By  the  Commission. 
I.  &  S.  Docket  No.  11.     Ops.  1853  and  1898. 

Trunk  lines  held  to  be  justified  in  canceling  divisions  and  allowances  which 
had  been  paid  to  certain  tap  lines,  which  tap  lines,  the  Commission  found,  were 
performing  a  plant-facility  service  and  not  a  common-carrier  service. 


1  Record  transferred  to  District  Court  for  the  Eastern  District  of  Missouri  upon  dissolu- 
tion of  Commerce  Court. 


85 

Tap  Line  Case. 

Not  reported.     October  30,  1912. 

I.  £  S.  Docket  No.  11. 

Trunk  lines  ordered  to  desist  from  paying  any  such  allowances  or  division 
to  any  such  tap  line. 

Mansfield  Ry.  &  Transportation  Co.  v.  United  States. 
Not  reported.     February  24,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  92.1 

Motion  to  dismiss  for  want  of  jurisdiction  on  the  ground  that  the  order, 
though  affirmative  in  form,  is  negative  in  substance,  denied. 

Mansfield  Ry.  &  Transportation  Co.  v.  United  States. 
209  Fed.  244.     November  26,  1913. 

Commerce  Court  No.  92.1    Mack,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid,  as  arbitrary  and  beyond  the  power 
of  the  Commission,  in  so  far  as  it  prohibited  any  allowance  for  switching  less 
than  1,000  feet  or  more  than  3  miles,  and  also  in  so  far  as  it  prohibited  the 
making  of  joint  rates  with  certain  tap  lines  and  the  payment  of  a  division 
thereof  to  the  tap  lines.  In  so  far  as  the  order  was  negative,  in  dismissing  the 
complaint  filed  to  secure  an  order  compelling  the  reestablishment  of  joint  rates, 
held  that  the  Commerce  Court  is  without  jurisdiction  to  determine  its  validity. 

United  States  v.  Mansfield  Ry.  &  Transportation  Co. 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  Mansfield  Ry.  &  Transportation  Co. 

234  TT.  S.  1.     May  25,  1914.     Day,  J. 

Decree  of  Commerce  Court  affirmed  and  order  of  Commission  held  to  be 
invalid. 

Tap  Line  Case. 

31  I.  C.  C.  490.     July  29,  1914.     Harlan,  Comr. 

I.  &  S.  Docket  No.  11.     Op.  2749. 

Original  and  supplemental  orders  denying  allowances  to  certain  tap  lines 
vacated.  Conclusions  announced  in  the  original  order  respecting  milling  in 
transit  rates  on  logs  adhered  to. 


TAP    LINE    CASE. 

Tap  Line  Case. 

23  I.  C.  C.  277.     April  23,  1912.     Harlan,  Comr. 
23  I.  C.  C.  549.     May  14,  1912.     By  the  Commission. 
I.  &  S.  Docket  No.  11.     Ops.  1853  and  1898. 

Trunk  lines  held  to  be  justified  in  canceling  divisions  and  allowances  which 
had  been  paid  to  certain  tap  lines,  which  tap  lines,  the  Commission  found,  were 
performing  a  plant-facility  service  and  not  a  common-carrier  service. 

Tap  Line  Case. 

Not  reported.     October  30,  1912. 

I.  &  S.  Docket  No.  11. 

Trunk  lines  ordered  to  desist  from  paying  any  such  allowances  or  division 
to  any  such  tap  line. 

1  Record  transferred  to  District  Court  for  the  Western  District  of  Louisiana  upon  disso- 
lution of  Commerce  Court. 


86 

Victoria,  Fisher  &  Western  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
Not  reported.     February  24,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  93.1 

Motion  to  dismiss  for  want  of  jurisdiction  on  the  ground  that  the  order, 
though  affirmative  in  form  is  negative  in  substance,  denied. 

Victoria,  Fisher  &  Western  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
209  Fed.  244.     November  26,  1913. 

Commerce  Court  No.  93.1    Mack,  J. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid,  as  arbitrary  and  beyond  the  power 
of  the  Commission,  in  so  far  as  it  prohibited  any  allowance  for  switching  less 
than  1,000  feet  or  more  than  3  miles,  and  also  in  so  far  as  it  prohibited  the 
making  of  joint  rates  with  certain  tap  lines  and  the  payment  of  a  division 
thereof  to  the  tap  lines.  In  so  far  as  the  order  was  negative,  in  dismissing 
the  complaint  filed  to  secure  an  order  compelling  the  reestablishment  of  joint 
rates,  held  that  the  Commerce  Court  is  without  jurisdiction  to  determine  its 
validity. 

United  States  v.  Victoria,  Fisher  &  Western  R.  R.  Co. 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  Victoria,  Fisher  &  Western  R.  R.  Co. 

234  IT.  S.  1.     May  25,  1914.     Day,  J. 

Judgment  of  Commerce  Court  affirmed  and  order  of  Commission  held  to  be 
invalid. 

Tap  Line  Case. 

31  I.  C.  C.  490.     July  29,  1914.     Harlan,  Comr. 

I.  &  S.  Docket  No.  11.    Op.  2749. 

Original  and  supplemental  orders  denying  allowances  to  certain  tap  lines 
vacated.  Conclusions  announced  in  the  original  order  respecting  milling  in 
transit  rates  on  logs  adhered  to. 


NEWPORT  NEWS  BATE  CASE. 

Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Newport  News  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co. 
23  I.  C.  C.  345.     April  8,  1912. 

Docket  No.  2965.     Op.  1854.    By  the  Commission. 

For  a  number  of  years  Newport  News  and  Norfolk,  Va.,  took  equal  rates  to 
&nd  from  common  points  in  associated  railways  territory  and  in  southeastern 
freight  association  territory.  Held,  that  it  was  an  undue  prejudice  against 
Newport  News  for  the  carriers  to  advance  the  Newport  News  rates  while  main- 
taining the  former  Norfolk  rates.  Carriers  ordered  to  cease  this  discimination. 

Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
204  Fed.  465.     March  11,  1913. 
Commerce  Court  No.  82.     Hunt,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid. 

1  Record  transferred  to  District  Court  for  the  Western  District  of  Louisiana  upon  disso- 
lution of  Commerce  Court. 


87 

MOBILE    WHARFAGE    CASE. 

[obile  Chamber  of  Commerce  v.  Mobile  &  Ohio  It.  R.  Co. 

23  I.  C.  C.  417.     May  7,  1912. 
Docket  No.  4242.     Op.  1869.     Lane,  Comr. 

Defendants  ordered  not  to  discriminate  in  extending  delivery  at  ship-side 
rates  at  the  port  of  Mobile,  Ala.,  on  traffic  moving  over  their  wharves  when 
destined  to  one  water  line  or  to  another;  defendants  further  ordered  to  cease 
discriminating  in  the  issuance  of  through  bills  of  lading  on  export  traffic  mov- 
ing at  their  ship-side  rates. 

Southern  Ky.  Co.  v.  United  States. 

Not  reported.     June  13,  1913. 
Commerce  Court  No.  81. 
Case  dismissed  without  prejudice  in  accordance  with  stipulation. 


PIPE-LINE  CASE. 

In  re  Pipe  Lines. 

24  I.  C.  C.  1.  June  3,  1912. 

Docket  No.  4199.    Op.  1907.    Lane,  Comr. 

Certain  pipe-line  companies  ordered  to  file  with  Commission  schedules  of  their 
rates  and  charges. 

Prairie  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  v.  United  States. 
Uncle  Sam  Oil  Co.  v.  United  States. 
Robert  D.  Benson  v.  United  States. 
Ohio  Oil  Co.  v.  United  States. 
Standard  Oil  Co.  v.  United  States. 
Standard  Oil  Co.  of  Louisiana  v.  United  States. 
204  Fed.  798.     March  12,  1913. 

Commerce  Court  No.  75 1-80.     Knapp,  /. 

Commission's  order  held  to  be  invalid  on  the  ground  that  section  1  of  the  act 
as  amended  June  29,  1906,  is(  unconstitutional  in  so  far  as  it  attempts  to  impose 
upon  what  was  previously  a  strictly  private  business  public  duties,  and  to 
convert  by  force  of  law  a  corporation  owner,  which  was  before  a  private  cor- 
poration, into  a  public-service  corporation  and  to  compel  it  to  devote  its  property 
to  a  public  use  without  its  consent.  It  was  held  that  this  constituted  a  depriva- 
tion of  property  without  due  process  of  law. 

United  States  v.  Prairie  Oil  &  Gas  Co. 

234  TT.  S.  548.     June  22,  1914.     Holmes,  J. 
Decree  of  Commerce  Court  reversed. 

United  States  v.  Uncle  Sam  Oil  Co. 

234  IT.  S.  548.     June  22,  1914.     Holmes,  J. 
Decree  of  Commerce  Court  affirmed. 


PIPE-LINE  CASE. 

In  re  Pipe  Lines. 

24  I.  C.  C.  1.  June  3,  1912. 

Docket  No.  4199.    Op.  1907.    Lane,  Comr. 

Certain  pipe-line  companies  ordered  to  file  with  Commission  schedules  of 
their  rates  and  charges. 

1  Records  transferred  to  various  district  courts  upon  dissolution  of  Commerce  Court. 


88 

United  States  Pipe  Line  Co.  v.  United  States. 

Commerce  Court  No.  85.1 

No  action  taken  in  this  case  pending  determination  of  the  other  Pipe  Line 
cases  by  the  Supreme  Court. 

United  States  Pipe  Line  Co.  v.  United  States. 
Pending. 
D.  C.,  E.  D.,  Pa. 


FLOUR   CITY    STEAMSHIP   CASE. 

United  States  ex  rel.  Flour  City  Line  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co. 
Not  reported.     October  25,  1911. 

Commerce  Court  No.  53. 

Petition  dismissed  which  sought  a  writ  of  mandamus  to  compel  defendant 
railroad  companies  to  apply,  on  traffic  from  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  to  the  East,  the 
same  rate  when  such  traffic  reached  Buffalo  on  boats  of  the  complainant  as 
when  such  traffic  reached  Buffalo  on  boats  of  other  lines. 

Flour  City  Steamship  Co.  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co. 
24  I.  C.  C.  179.     June  4,  1912. 

Docket  No.  4495.    Op.  1933.    McChord,  Comr. 

Held,  that  complainant  is  a  common  carrier  subject  to  the  act  and  entitled  to 
form  a  part  of  a  joint  through  route.  No  order  entered.  Case  held  open  for 
such  further  action  as  may  become  necessary. 


BOWLING   GEEEN    FOURTH    SECTION    CASE. 

Bowling    Green    Business   Men's    Protective   Asso.    v.    Louisville   &    Nashville 

R.  R.  Co. 

24  I.  C,  C.  228.    June  4,  1912. 

Docket  No.  4310.  Fourth  section  application  No.  1952.  Op.  1940.  Meyer, 
Comr. 

That  portion  of  defendants'  fourth  section  application  No.  1952,  which  sought 
authority  to  continue  to  charge  lower  rates  on  traffic  through  Bowling  Green, 
Ky.,  to  and  from  Nashville,  Tenn,,  than  are  contemporaneously  maintained  to 
and  from  Bowling  Green,  denied;  also  that  portion  of  said  application  which 
sought  authority  to  continue  to  charge  lower  rates  on  oranges  from  Jacksonville, 
Fla.,  through  Bowling  Green  to  Louisville,  Ky.,  than  are  contemporaneously 
maintained  on  Bowling  Green,  denied. 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
207  Fed.  591.     September  4,  1913. 

Commerce  Court  No.  86.2    Garland,  J. 

Following  Procter  &  Gamble  v.  U.  S.  (225  U.  S.,  282)  to  the  effect  that  a 
denial  of  relief  by  the  Commission  is  not  an  order  of  which  the  Commerce 
Court  has  jurisdiction,  case  dismissed  for  want  of  jurisdiction. 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
Pending,  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

1  Record  transferred  to  District  Court  for  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania,  upon 
dissolution  of  the  Commerce  Court. 

2  Record  transferred  to  District  Court  for  the  Western  District  of  Kentucky,  upon  dis- 
solution of  Commerce  Court. 


89 

BATTLE  CBEEK  FOURTH  SECTION  CASE. 

Kellogg  Toasted  Corn  Flake  Co.  v.  Michigan  Central  R.  R.  Co. 
24  I.  C.  C.  604.     June  5,  1912. 

Docket  No.  3813.  Fourth  section  application  No.  2045.  Op.  1982.  By  the 
Commission. 

That  portion  of  application  No.  2045,  which  sought  authority  to  continue 
lower  rates  on  sugar  from  New  Orleans,  La.,  to  Detroit,  Mich.,  Cleveland  and 
Toledo,  Ohio,  than  the  rate  contemporaneously  in  effect  to  Battle  Creek,  Mich., 
and  other  intermediate  stations  north  of  the  Ohio  River,  denied. 

Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States. 

Not.  reported.     November  9,  1912. 
Commerce  Court  No.  87. 
Case  dismissed  by  stipulation. 


BUSS  LINE  PASS   CASE. 

United  States  v.  Central  R.  R.  Co.  of  New  Jersey. 
Not  reported.     October  8,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  84. 

Petition  for  injunction  to  restrain  defendant  from  issuing  passes  to  employees 
of  buss  lines  not  subject  to  the  act,  dismissed  with  consent  of  the  Government. 


ARKANSAS  FERTILIZER  CASE. 

Arkansas  Fertilizer  Co.  v.  Kansas  City  Southern  Ry.  Co. 

Special  Docket  No.  12784.    December  3,  1910. 

Reparation  denied  complainant  on  the  ground  that  the  claim  was  barred  by 
section  10  for  the  reason  that  more  than  two  years  had  elapsed  between  the 
delivery  of  the  goods  to  the  consignee  and  the  filing  of  the  claim. 

Arkansas  Fertilizer  Co.  v.  United  States. 

193  Fed.  667;  1  Com.  Ct.  283.     December  5,  1911. 
Commerce  Court  No.  42.     Knapp,  J. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid  in  all  respects. 

Arkansas  Fertilizer  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  Iron  Mountain  &  Southern  Ry.  Co. 

25  I.  C.  C.  266.     November  11,  1912. 
Docket  No.  4714.    Op.  2070.    By  the  Commission. 
Former  action  affirmed  and  complaint  dismissed. 


COAL  DIFFERENTIAL   CASE. 

Louisville  &  Nashville  Railroad  Coal  &  Coke  Rates. 
26  I.  C.  C.  20.     January  7,  1913. 

I.  &  S.  71.    Op.  2141.    McChord,  Comr. 

Proposed  increased  rates  from  Appalachia  and  the  St.  Charles  districts  in 
Virginia  on  coal  to  the  Ohio  River  and  to  points  north  and  south  thereof  and  OD 
coke  to  points  north  of  the  Ohio  River  out  found  to  have  been  justified. 


90 

Coal  Rates  from  Virginia  Mines. 
30  I.  C.  C.  635.     June  13,  1914. 

I.  &  S.  321.     Op.  2689.     Meyer,  Comr. 

Differentials  prescribed  on  coal  rates  between  St.  Charles  and  Appalachia 
groups  and  mines  at  Denham,  Ky.,  and  the  Middlesboro-Jellico  group  to  points 
north  of  the  Ohio  River. 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
Not  reported. 

D.  C.,  W.  D.,  Va.     October  1,  1914.     Pritchard,  J. 

Preliminary  injunction  against  enforcement  of  Commission's  order  denied. 
Application  should  first  be  made  to  the  Commission  for  rehearing  and  that  the 
carrier  must  introduce  in  court  the  entire  record  before  the  Commission  and 
not  parts  only. 


MANDAMUS. 

United  States  ex  rel.  Stony  Fork  Coal  Co.  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 
195  Fed.  88;  1  Com.  Ct.  383.    March  20,  1912. 

Commerce  Court  No.  57.    Garland,  J. 

Upon  application  of  mine  owners,  the  court  issued  a  writ  of  mandamus  com- 
manding the  carriers  to  furnish  cars  and  carry  petitioners'  coal  on  the  ground 
that  failure  to  do  so  subjects  petitioners  to  an  undue  discrimination.  It  was 
held  that  a  dispute  between  carriers  as  to  which  carrier  shall  furnish  cars  for 

a  short  haul  does  not  justify  the  carriers  in  declining  to  furnish  transportation. 

• 

Coal  Rates  on  the  Stony  Fork  Branch. 
In  re  Advances  on  Coal. 

26  I.  C'.  C.  168.     February  10,  1913. 

I.  &  S.  Docket  No.  104.    Op.  2180.    Meyer,  Comr. 

Tariffs,  by  which  it  was  proposed  to  cancel  the  joint  rates  on  coal  on  the 
Stony  Fork  branch  of  the  Louisville  &  Nashville  road,  permanently  suspended. 
It  was  held  that  the  carrier  upon  whose  line  shippers  are  located  is  legally  re- 
sponsible for  furnishing  transportation  facilities. 


PULP    WOOD   RATE   CASE. 

Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Asso.  v.  Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Ry.  Co. 
27  I.  C.  C.  83.     May  12,  1913. 

Docket  No.  5327.     Op.  2316.     Clark,  Comr. 

Rates  on  pulp  wood  declared  unreasonable  from  Minnesota  to  Wisconsin  and 
Michigan  and  reduced  rates  as  maximum  rates  to  be  observed  in  the  future. 

Frederick  M.  Alger  v.  Duluth  &  Northern  Minnnesota  R.  R.  Co. 
D.  C.,  D.,  Minn.,  5th  Div.    Pending. 


ABANSAS   PASS   CASE. 

Aransas  Pass  Channel  &  Dock  Co.  v.  Galveston,  Harrisburg  &  San  Antonio 

Ry.  Co. 

27  I.  C.  C.  403.     June  16,  1913. 

Docket  No.  5249.     Op.  2359.     Clark,  Comr. 

Commission  ordered  certain  carriers  to  remove  discrimination,  which  resulted 
from  the  application  of  proportional  rates  which  are  greater  to  Port  Aransas 


91 

than  to  Galveston  on  cottton  shipped  from  points  in  Texas  through  these  ports 
to  foreign  countries,  and  the  action  of  the  carriers  in  issuing  through  bills  of 
lading  on  shipments  which  pass  through  Galveston  while  refusing  to  issue 
similar  bills  of  lading  on  shipments  through  Port  Aransas. 

Galveston,  Harrisburg  &  San  Antonio  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
D.  C.,  S.  D.,  Tex.     Pending. 


COMMUTATION   BATE  CASE. 

The  Commutation  Rate  Case. 

27  I.  C.  C.  549.     June  19,  1913. 

I.  &  S.  Nos.  1  and  8.     Op.  2382.     Harlan,  Comr. 

Commission  by  report  proposed  that  carriers  reduce  their  commutation  pas- 
senger rates  between  Greenwich,  Coscob,  Riverside,  Sound  Beach,  and  Stamford, 
Conn.  The  carriers  having  failed  to  file  tariff  containing  the  proposed  fares, 
an  order  was  entered  by  the  Commission  on  December  2,  1913. 

New  York,  New  Haven  &  Hartford  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States. 
D.  C.,  Conn.    Pending. 

NASHVILLE   INTERCHANGE   CASE. 

Traffic  Bureau  of  Nashville  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 

28  I.  C.  C.  533.     December  9,  1913. 
Docket  No.  4604.     Op.  2488.     McChord,  Comr. 

Rates  on  coal  from  L.  &  N.  western  Kentucky  mines  to  Nashville  and  from 
N.  C.  &  St.  L.  mines  in  Tennessee  and  Alabama  to  Nashville  found  to  be  unrea- 
sonable; also  that  refusal  of  defendants  to  interchange  traffic  to  and  from 
Tennessee  Central  R.  R.  Co.  found  to  be  unjustly  discriminatory  under  section  3. 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States. 

216  Fed.  672.     September  1,  1914. 
D.  C.,  M.  D.,  Tenn. 
Order  of  Commission  held  to  be  valid. 


MANDAMUS    CASE. 

Louisville  Cement  Co.  v.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. 
28  I.  C.  C.  732.     October  7,  1913. 

Docket  No.  5356.    Op.  U.  R.  A^333.    By  the  Commission. 

Reparation  denied  on  shipments  of  coal  from  Jellico  and  Wilton,  Ky.,  to 
Speeds,  Ind.,  on  the  ground  that  the  complaint  was  not  filed  with  the  Com- 
mission within  two  years  from  the  date  the  shipments  were  delivered  at  Speeds, 
Ind. 

United   States  ex   rel.   Louisville  Cement  Co.  v.   Interstate   Commerce   Com- 
mission. 

Not  reported.  July  20,  1914. 
Sup.  Ct.  D.  of  C.  Anderson,  J. 
Application  for  mandamus  to  compel  Commission  to  take  jurisdiction  as  to 

shipments  held  barred  by  section  16,  denied. 

United  States  ex  rel.  Louisville  Cement  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
C.  Apps.,  D.  C.     Pending. 


92 

WATER   LINE    EMPLOYEES    PASS    CASH.', 

United  States  v.  Erie  R.  R.  Co. 

1  Com.  Ct.  739.     November  26,  1913. 

Commerce  Court  Nos.  83  and  94.    Per  curiam. 

Petition  for  injunction  to  restrain  the  Erie  road  from  issuing  passes  to  em- 
ployees of  water  lines  alleged  not  to  be  subject  to  the  act,  dismissed  on  account 
of  a  divided  court. 
United  States  v.  Erie  R.  R.  Co. 
213  Fed.  391.     April  29,  1914. 

D.  C.,  S.  D.,  N.  Y.     Hough,  J. 

Common  carrier  subject  to  the  act  not  limited  to  the  exchange  of  passes  with 
other  carriers  equally  subject  to  act.  Passes  may  be  exchanged  with  trans- 
Atlantic  steamship  lines  and  foreign  railroads  not  subject  to  the  act. 


NEW    CASTLE,    PA.,    INTERCHANGE    CASE. 

Buffalo,  Rochester  &  Pittsburgh  Ry.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  Co. 
29  I.  C.  C.  114.     December  3,  1913. 

Docket  No.  3244.     Op.  2540.     Clements,  Comr. 

Defendant  ordered  to  cease  discrimination  against  complainant  by  refusal 
to  interchange  traffic  at  New  Castle,  Pa. 

Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  United  States. 

214  Fed.  445. 
D.  C.  W.  D.  Pa. 
May  9,  1914.     Hunt,  «7. 
Commission's  order  held  to  be  valid. 


MANDAMUS   CASE. 

Industrial  Railways  Case. 

29  I.  C.  C.  212.    January  20,  1914. 

Docket  No.  4181.     Op.  2547.     Harlan,  Comr. 

Commission  by  decision  held  that  the  Newburgh  &  South  Shore  Railway 
was  a  plant  facility  of  the  American  Steel  &  Wire  Co.  and  not  entitled  to  re- 
ceive divisions  out  of  through  rates.  No  formal  order  was  entered. 

United  States  ex  rel.  American  Steel  &  Wire  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission. 

Not  reported.     Aug.  17,  1914. 
Sup.  Ct.  D.  of  C.     Stafford,  J. 
Application   for   mandamus  to   compel   Commission   to   enter   formal   order. 

denied. 

United  States  ex  rel.  Snell  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
C.  Apps.,  D.  C.     Pending. 


93 

METROPOLIS    CASE.    » 

Metropolis  Commercial  Club  v.  Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. 
30  I.  C.  C.  40.     April  6,  1914. 

Docket  No.  6127.     Op.  2616.     Clark,  Comr. 

Rates  on  lumber  and  logs  from  points  in  Tennessee,  Alabama,  Mississippi. 
Louisiana,  and  Arkansas  to  Metropolis,  111.,  found  unduly  prejudicial  against 
Metropolis  in  favor  of  Cairo,  111. 

St.  Louis,  Iron  Mountain  &  Southern  Ry.'  Co.  v.  United  States. 

Not  reported.     September  10,  1914. 
D.  C.,  E.  D.,  111.     Baker,  J. 
Preliminary  injunction  against  enforcement  of  Commission's  order  granted. 


CEMENT    RATE    CASE. 

Allentown  Portland  Cement  Co.  v.  Philadelphia  &  Reading  Ry.  Co. 
31  I.  C.  C.  277.     July  10,  1914. 

Docket  No.  5314.     Op.  2728.     Clements,  Comr. 

Carriers  required  to  desist  from  an  undue  prejudice  caused  by  failure  to 
maintain  to  Jersey  City  for  local  consumption  the  same  rates  on  cement  from 
Evansville,  Pa.,  in  the  Lehigh  district  as  are  maintained  from  other  points  in 
said  district. 

Philadelphia  &  Reading  Ry.  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission. 
D.  C.,  E.  D.,  Pa.     Pending. 


IMMUNITY  OF   WITNESS   CASE. 

In  the  Matter  of  Private  Cars. 

Docket  No.  4906.     Not  yet  decided. 

Order  of  Investigation  entered  June  5,  1912. 

Allowances  paid  for  the  uses  of  private  cars,  practices  of  handling  and  icing 
of  such  equipment,  etc. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Frederick  W.  Ellis. 
Not  reported.     July  7,  1914. 

D.  C.,  111.,  E.  Div.     Landis,  J. 

Order  entered  directing  defendant  to  testify  and  produce  certain  documentary 
evidence  concerning  transportation  service  performed  by  his  corporation  in 
connection  with  interstate  shipments  of  packing-house  products. 


COMMISSIONS    TO    IMPORT    AGENTS. 

United  States  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co. 
Not  yet  decided. 

D.  C.,  S.  D.,  N.  Y. 

This  is  a  suit  under  the  Elkins  Act  brought  for  the  purpose  of  restraining  the 
Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co.  from  paying  salaries  and  commissions  to  Geo.  W. 
Sheldon  &  Co.  as  import  agents. 


94 

MANDAMUS   CASE. 

United  States  ex  rel.  Attorney  General  i?.  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  E.  Co. 
212  Fed.  486.     March  25,  1914. 

D.  C.,  W.  D.,  Ky.     Evans,  J. 

Application  under  section  20  for  mandamus  to  compel  defendant  to  disclose 
certain  information  in  aid  of  an  investigation  by  the  Commission  pursuant  to  a 
resolution  of  the  Senate,  denied. 


MANDAMUS   CASE. 

United  States  ex  rel.  Attorney  General  v.  Nashville,  Chattanooga  &  St.  Louis 

Ry.  Co. 
Not  reported.     September  4,  1914.    Sanford,  J. 

D.  C.,  M.  D.,  Tenn. 

Application  under  section  20  for  mandamus  to  compel  defendant  to  disclose 
certain  information  in  aid  of  an  investigation  by  the  Commission  pursuant  to  a 
resolution  of  the  Senate,  denied. 


TABLE  OF  OASES. 


Page. 

Abandoned  Property  Case 38 

Aberdeen  Group  Commercial  Asso.  v.  M.  &  O.  R.  R.  Co 33 

Accounting  Case 38, 72 

Alabama  &  V.  Ry.  Co.,  Florida  Fruit  &  Vegetable  Shippers'  Asso.  v 52 

Alabama  Midland  Ry.  Co.,  Board  of  Trade  of  Troy  v 18 

Alabama  Midland  Ry.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Troy  Case) 18 

Alaska  Case 65 

Alger  v.  D.  &  N.  M.  R.  R.  Co.  (Pulp-wood  rate  case) 90 

Allentown  Portland  Cement  Co.  v.  P.  &  R.  Ry.  Co 93 

American  Coal  Co.  v.  B.  &  O.  R.  R.  Co 60 

American  Sugar  Refining  Co.  v.  D.  L.  &  W.  R.  R.  Co.  (Lighterage  Allowance 

Case) 53 

American  Sugar  Refining  Co.  v.  N.  Y.  C.  &  H.  R.  R.  R.  Co.  (Lighterage  Allow- 
ance Case) 53 

Anaconda  Copper  Mining  Co.  v.  C.  &  E.  R.  R.  Co 74 

Anaconda  Copper  Mining  Co.  v.  United  States 75 

Anderson  &  Saline  River  Ry.  Co.,  Commercial  Club  of  Omaha  v 66 

Aransas  Pass  Channel  &  Dock  Co.  v.  G.  H.  &  S.  A.  Ry.  Co 90 

Arkansas  Fertilizer  Co.  v.  K.  C.  S.  Ry.  Co 89 

Arkansas  Fertilizer  Co.  v.  St.  L.,  I.  M.  &  S.  Ry.  Co 89 

Arkansas  Fertilizer  Co.  v.  United  States 89 

Arlington  Heights  Fruit  Co.  v.  S.  P.  Co.  (Lemon  Case) 66 

Arlington  Heights  Fruit  Exchange  v.  S.  P.  Co.  (Precooling  Case) 75 

Associated  Jobbers  of  Los  Angeles  v.  A.  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry  .Co 63 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.,  Associated  Jobbers  of  Los  Angeles  v...  63 
Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.,  Commercial  Club,  Traffic  Bureau  of 

Salt  Lake  City  v 70 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Intermountain  Case — Phoenix)  69 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Lemon  Case) 67 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Los  Angeles  Switching  Case).  63 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Orange  Routing  Case) 27 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (San  Bernardino  Case) 9 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  L.  &  P.  Ry.  Co 82 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  M.  Ry.  &  T.  Co 85 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.,  San  Bernardino  Board  of  Trade  v 9 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States  (Intermountain  Case — 

Phoenix) 69 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States  (Intermountain  Case — 

Reno) : 68 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States  (Lemon  Case) 67 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States  (Precooling  Case) 75 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States  (Southern  Lumber 

Case— Omaha) 66 

(95) 


96 

Pago. 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  V.  F.  &  W.  Ry.  Co 86 

Atchison,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe  Ry.  Co.  v.  W.  &  L.  C.  Ry.  Co 83 

Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  R.  Co.,  Florida  Fruit  &  Vegetable  Shippers'  Protective 

Asso.  v 52 

Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.  R.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Boston  Shoe  Case) 62 

Augusta  Chamber  of  Commerce  v.  S.  Ry.  Co 78 

Augusta  Chamber  of  Commerce  v.  United  States 78 

Baer  Bros.  Mercantile  Co.  v.  D.  &  R.  G.  R.  R.  Co 49 

Baer  Bros.  Mercantile  Co.  v.  M.  P.  Ry.  Co 49,  61 

Baird,  I.G.G.v 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co. ,  American  Coal  Co.  v 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.,  Federal  Sugar  Co.  v 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.,  Hecker-Jones- Jewell  Milling  Co.  v 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Car  Distribution  Case  Rail  and  River). . 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Hours  of  Service  Case) 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Party  Rate  Case) 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Restricted  Rate  Case) 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.,  P.  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Party  Rate  Case) 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.,  Rail  &  River  Go.,  v 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.,  Red  Rock  Fuel  Co.  v 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.,  United  States  v.  (Lighterage  Allowance  Case — 

Federal  Sugar) 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.,  v.  United  States  (Restricted  Rate  Case) 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.,  in  re  Alleged  unlawful  charges  from  Chicago 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  R.  R,  Co.,  C.  &  C.  T.  Co.  v 

Baltimore  &  Ohio  Southwestern  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States  (Cincinnati  & 

Columbus  Traction  Case) 

Banner  Milling  Co.  v.  N.  Y.  C.  &  H.  R.  R.  R.  Co 

Bartlett  Commission  Co.  v.  I.  C.  R.  R.  Co 

Battle  Creek  Fourth  Section  Case 

Behlmer  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.  (Summerville  Hay  Case) 

Behlmer  v.  M.  &  C.  R.  R.  Co 

Bellaire,  Z.  &  C.  Ry.  Co.,  It-C.  0.  v 

Benson  v.  United  States    

Big  Vein  Coal  Case 

Board  of  Trade  of  Chattanooga  v.  E.  T.,  V.  &  G.  Ry.  Co. . .' 

Board  of  Trade  of  Hampton  T;.  N.  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co 

Board  of  Trade  of  Kansas  City  v.  United  States 

Board  of  Trade  of  New  Orleans  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co 

Board  of  Trade  of  New  York  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co 

Board  of  Trade  of  San  Bernardino  v.  A.  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co 

Board  of  Trade  of  Troy  v.  Alabama  Midland  Ry  Co 

Boston  &  Maine  R.  R.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Hours  of  Service  Report  Case) 

Boston  Shoe  Case 

Bowling  Green  Business  Men's  Protective  Asso.  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co 

Brewers.  C.  of  G.  Ry.  Co 

Brewer  &  Hanleiter  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co...". 

Brimson,  I.  C.  C.  v 

Buffalo  Grain  Case 

Buffalo,  Rochester  &  Pittsburgh  Ry.  Go.  v.  P.  Co 

BulahCoalCo.  v.  P.  R.  R.  Co 

Burgess  v.  Transcontinental  Freight  Bureau 

Burlington  &  Missouri  River  R.  R.  Co.  in  Nebraska,  Gustin  v 


97 

Page. 

Burnham,  Hanna,  Munger  Dry  Goods  Co.  v.  C.  R.  I.  &  P.  Ry.  Co 50 

Business  Men's  Protective  Asso.  of  Bowling  Green  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co 88 

Buss  Line  Pass  Case 89 

Butler  County  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States  (Tap  Line  Case) 84 

California  Commercial  Asso.  v.  Wells  Fargo  &  Co 51 

CaUawayv.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co 24 

Calumet  &  Blue  Island  Ry.  Co.,  in  re  (Brimson  Case) 13 

Car  Distribution  Case  (Hillsdale) 71 

Car  Distribution  Cases  (Rail  &  River) 44 

Car  Distribution  Cases  (Traer) 40 

Cardiff  Coal  Co.  v.  C.  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry.  Co 41 

Cattle  Raisers'  Asso.  of  Texas  v.  C.  B.  &  Q.  R.  R.  Co 30 

Cattle  Raisers'  Asso.  of  Texas  v.  Ft.  W.  &  D.  C.  Ry.  Co 29 

Cattle  Raisers'  Asso.  of  Texas  v.  M.  K.  &  T.  Ry.  Co 36 

Cattle  Raisers'  Asso.  of  Texas  v.  United  States. 37 

Central  of  Georgia  Ry.  Co.,  Brewer  v 23 

Central  of  Georgia  Ry.  Co.,  Riser  Co:  v 62 

Central  R.  R.  of  New  Jersey,  Crane  Iron  Works  v • 56 

Central  R.  R.  Co.  of  New  Jersey  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Hours  of  Service  Case) 46 

Central  R.  R.  Co.  of  New  Jersey,  United  States  v.  (Buss  Line  Case) 89 

Central  Yellow  Pine  Asso.  v.  I.  C.  R.  R.  Co 33 

Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Augusta  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co 78 

Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Augusta  v.  United  States 78 

Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Chattanooga  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co 18 

Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Cincinnati  v.  C.,  N.  0.  &  T.  P.  Ry.  Co 19 

Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Minneapolis  v.  Great  Northern  Ry.  Co 17 

Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Mobile  v.  Mobile  &  O.  R.  R.  Co 87 

Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Newport  News  v.  S.  Ry.  Co 86 

Charleston  Truck  Farmers  Asso.  v.  N.  E.  R.  R.  Co.  of  S.  C 21 

Chattanooga  Board  of  Trade  v.  E.  T.,  V.  &  G.  Ry.  Co 17 

Chattanooga  Chamber  of  Commerce  v.  S.  Ry.  Co 18 

Chesapeake  &  Ohio  Coal  Case 28 

Chesapeake  &  Ohio  Ry.  Co.,  I.  G.  G.  v 29 

Chesapeake  &  Ohio  Ry.  Co.,  United  States,  ex  rel.  I.  C.  C.  v 29 

Chicago  &  Alton  R.  R.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Traer  Car  Distribution  Case) 41 

Chicago  &  Alton  R.  R.  Co.,  Traer  v 40 

Chicago  &  E  rie  R.  R.  Co.,  Anaconda  Copper  Mining  Co.  v 74 

Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  R.  R.  Co.,  Cattle  Raisers'  Asso.  of  Texas  v 30 

Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  R.  R.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Chicago  Switching  Ter- 
minal Case) 29 

Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  R.  R.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Denver  Rate  Case) 57 

Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  R.  R.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Denver  Rate  Case). 57 

Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  R.  R.  Co.,  Traffic  Bureau,  Merchants  Exchange 

of  St.  Louis  v 32,  79 

Chicago  Freight  Bureau  v.  L.  N.  A.  &  C.  Ry.  Co.  (Maximum  Rate  Case) *19 

Chicago  Great  Western  Ry.  Co.,  Chicago  Live  Stock  Exchange  v 33 

Chicago  Great  Western  Ry.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Chicago  Live  Stock  Exchange) 33 

Chicago  Junction  Ry.  Co.  v.U.  S 40 

Chicago,  Kalamazoo  &  Saginaw  R.  R.  Co.,  U.  S.  ex  rel.  I.  C.  C.,  v. . 23 

Chicago  Live  Stock  Exchange  v.  Chicago  Great  Western  Ry.  Co 33 

Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Ry.  Co.,  Cardiff  Coal  Co.  v 41 

Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Ry.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Cardiff  Coal  Case) 41 

Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Ry.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Flaxseed  Case) 55 

58069—14 7 


98 

Page. 

Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Ry.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Through  Rate  Case) 50 

Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Ry.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Minneapolis  Grain  Case). .  17 

Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Ry.  Co.,  Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Asso.  v. . .  90 

Chicago,  Milwaukee  &  St.  Paul  Ry.  Co.,  Red  Wing  Linseed  Co.  v 55 

Chicago  Proportional  Rates  Case 78 

Chicago,  Rock  Island  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co.,  Burnham,  Hanna,  Hunger  Dry  Goods 

Co.  v 50 

Chicago,  Rock  Island  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co.,  Greater  Des  Moines  Committee  v 60 

Chicago,  Rock  Island  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Denver  Rate  Case) 57 

Chicago,  Rock  Island  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Des  Moines  Proportional 

Rate  Case) 60 

Chicago,  Rock  Island  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Missouri  River  Rate  Case). .  50 

Chicago  Terminal  Switching  Case 29 

Cincinnati  &  Columbus  Traction  Co.  v.  B.  &  O.  S.  W.  R.  R.  Co 76 

Cincinnati  Chamber  of  Commerce,  Freight  Bureau  v.  C.,  N.  O.  &  T.  P.  Ry.  Co. .  19 

Cincinnati,  Hamilton  &  Dayton  Ry.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Soap  Classification  Case). .  28 
Cincinnati,  Hamilton  &  Dayton  Ry.  Co.,  Procter  &  Gamble  Co.  v.  (Private  Car 

Demurrage  Case) 74 

Cincinnati,  Hamilton  &  Dayton  Ry.  Co.,  Procter  &  Gamble  Co.  v.  (Soap  Classi- 
fication Case) 28 

Cincinnati,  New  Orleans  &  Texas  Pacific  Ry.  Co.,  Freight  Bureau  of  Cincinnati 

Chamber  of  Commerce  v 19 

Cincinnati,  New  Orleans  &  Texas  Pacific  Ry.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Georgia  Com- 
mission Cases) 15 

Cincinnati,  New  Orleans  &  Texas  Pacific  Ry.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Maximum  Rate 

Case) 20 

Cincinnati,  New  Orleans  &  Texas  Pacific  Ry.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Social  Circle 

Case) 12 

Cincinnati,  New  Orleans  &  Texas  Pacific  Ry.  Co. ,  James  &  Mayer  Buggy  Go.v..  11 
Cincinnati,  New  Orleans  &  Texas  Pacific  Ry.  Co.,  R.  R.  Commission  of  Geor- 
gia v 14 

Cincinnati,  New  Orleans  &  Texas  Pacific  Ry.  Co.,  Receivers  &  Shippers'  Asso. 

of  Cincinnati  v 64,  65 

Cincinnati,  Portsmouth  &  Virginia  R.  R.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Wilmington  Case) 26 

Cincinnati,  Portsmouth  &  Virginia  R.  R.  Co.,  Wilmington  Tariff  Asso.  v 26 

Cincinnati  Receivers  &  Shippers'  Asso.  v.  C.,  N.  O.  &  T.  P.  Ry.  Co 64,  65 

City  of  Danville  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co 25 

City  of  St.  Cloud  v.  Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co 24 

City  of  Spokane  v.  Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co 70 

Clark  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co 55 

Clark  Bros.  Coal  Mining  Co.  v.  P.  R.  R.  Co 72 

Classification  Case  (Hay) 27 

Classification  Case  (Soap) 28 

Cleveland,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co.,  Elmore-Benjamin  Coal 

Co.  v 79 

Clyde  Steamship  Co. ,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Georgia  Commission  Cases) 15 

Clyde  Steamship  Co.,  Railroad  Commission  of  Georgia  v 14 

Clyde  Steamship  Co.,  Trammell  v.  (Georgia  Commission  Cases) 14 

Coal  Case  (Big  Vein) 60 

Coal  Creek  Case 78 

Coal  Rates  on  the  Stony  Fork  Branch 90 

Coal  Rates  from  Virginia  Mines 90 

Coke  Case...                                                     78 


99 

Page. 

Coke  Dual  Rates  Case 74 

Colorado  Fuel  &  Iron  Co.  v.  S.  P.  Co 21 

Colored  Passengers  Cases 7,  38 

Commercial  Asso.  of  California  v.  Wells  Fargo  &  Co 51 

Commercial  Club  of  Maricopa  County  v.  S.  F.,  P.  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  (Intermountain 

Case— Phoenix) 69 

Commercial  Club  of  Maricopa  County  v.  S.  F.,  P.  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  (Intermountain 

Case— Reno) 68 

Commercial  Club  of  Metropolis  v.  I.  C.  R.  R.  Co 93 

Commercial  Club  of  Omaha  v.  A.  &  S.  R.  R.  R.  Co 66 

Commercial  Club,  Traffic  Bureau  of  Salt  Lake  City  v.  A.  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co. . .  70 

Commissions  to  Import  Agents 93 

Commutation  Rate  Case 91 

Company  Material  Case 75 

Consolidated  Forwarding  Co.  v.  S.  P.  Co 26 

Consolidated  Shipment  Case 51 

Consolidation  of  Carriers,  In  re 39 

Corporation  Commission  of  North  Carolina  v.  N.  &  W.  Ry.  Co 72 

County  Commercial  Club  of  Maricopa  v.S.F.,P.&P.  Ry.  Co.  (Intermountain 

Case— Phoenix) 69 

County  Commercial  Club  of  Maricopa  v .  S.  F.,  P.  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  (Intermountain 

Case— Reno) 68 

Coxe  Bros.  &  Co.  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co 10 

Crane  Iron  Works  v.  C.  R.  R.  of  N.  J 56 

Crane  Iron  Works  v.  I.  C.  C 56 

Crane  Iron  Works  v.  United  States 56 

Crane  R.  R.  Co.  v.  P.  &  R.  Ry.  Co...." 56 

Danville  v.  Southern  Ry.  Co 25 

Darnell  v.  I.  C.  R.  R.  Co.  (Thompson  Lumber  Case) 42 

Darnell-Taenzer  Lumber  Co.  v.  S.  P.  Co.  (Burgess  Lumber  Case) 43 

Davis  v.  United  States 80 

Delaware,  Lacka wanna  &  Western  R.  R.  Co.,  American  Sugar  Refining  Co.  v. 

(Lighterage  Allowance  Case) 53 

Delaware,  Lackawanna  &  Western  R.  R.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Consolidated  Shipment 

Case) 51 

Delaware,  Lackawanna  &  Western  R.  R.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Hours  of  Service  Case).  47 

Delaware,  Lackawanna  &  Western  R.  R,  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Rahway  Valley  Case)  45 

Delaware,  Lackawanna  &  Western  R.  R.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Station  Facilities  Case) .  38 

Delaware,  Lackawanna  &  Western  R.  R.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Window  Shades  Case).  19 

Delaware,  Lackawanna  &  Western  R.  R.  Co.,  Page  v 19 

Delaware,  Lackawanna  &  Western  R.  R.  Co.,  Preston  &  Davis  v 37 

Delaware,  Lackawanna  &  Western  R.  R.  Co.,  Rahway  Valley  R.  R.  Co.  v 45 

Delaware  State  Grange  v.  N.  Y.,  P.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co 10 

Denver  &  Rio  Grande  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Baer  Bros.  Mercantile  Co 49 

Denver  &  Rio  Grande  R.  R.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Leadville  Beer  Case) 61 

Denver  &  Rio  Grande  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States  (Intermountain  Case — Salt 

Lake) 70 

Denver  Rate  Case 56 

Des  Moines  Committee,  Greater  v.  C.  R.  I.  &  P.  Ry.  Co 60 

Des  Moines  Proportional  Rate  Case 60 

Detroit,  Grand  Haven  &  Milwaukee  Ry.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Stone  &  Garten) 8 

Detroit,  Grand  Haven  &  Milwaukee  Ry.  Co.,  Stone  &  Garten  v 8 

Dickerson  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co. .  55 


100 

Page. 

Diffenbaugh  v.  I.  C.  C 32 

Duluth  &  Northern  Minnesota  R.  R.  Co.,  Alger  v.  (Pulp  Wood  Rate  Case) 80 

Duncan  &  Co.  v.  N.  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co 59 

Eagle  White  Lead  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C 65 

•     East  Tennessee,  Virginia  &  Georgia  Ry.  Co.,  Board  of  Trade  of  Chattanooga  v.  17 
East  Tennessee,  Virginia  &  Georgia  Ry.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Chattanooga  Board 

of  Trade  Case) 17 

Edwards  v.  N.  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co 39 

Eichenberg  v.  S.  P.  Co 45 

Elevation  Allowance  Cases 31,  79 

Ellis,  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  (Immunity  of  Witness  Case) .  . .. 93 

Elmore-Benjamin  Coal  Co.  v.  C.,  C.,  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co 79 

ErieR.  R.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Hours  of  Service  Case) ! 49 

Erie  R.  R.  Co.,  United  States  v 92 

Export  Shipping  Co.  v.  Wabash  R.  R.  Co 51 

Farmers'  Loan  &  Trust  Co.  v,  N.  P.  Ry.  Co 17 

Federal  Sugar  Refining  Co.  v.  B.  &  O.  R.  R.  Co 53 

Flaxseed  Case 55 

Flint  &  Walling  Mfg.  Co.  v.  L.  S.  &  M.  S.  Ry.  Co 50 

Florida  East  Coast  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States 53 

Florida  Fruit  &  Vegetable  Shippers'  Protective  Asso.  v.  A.  C.  L.  R.  R.  Co 52 

Florida  Fruit  Exchange  v.  S.  F.  &  W.  Ry.  Co 12 

Florida  Railroad  Commission  v.  S.  F.  &  W.  Ry.  Co 12 

Florida  Railroad  Commissioners  v.  S.  A.  L.  Ry.  Co 52 

Flour  City  Line,  United  States  ex  rel.,  v.  L.  V.  R.  R.  Co 88 

Flour  City  Steamship  Co.  v.  L.  V.  R.  R.  Co 88 

Ft.  Worth  &  Denver  City  Ry.  Co.,  Cattle  Raisers'  Asso.  of  Texas  v 29 

Fourth  Section  Applications  Nos.  205,  342,  343,  344,  349,  350,  352  (Inter- 
mountain  Cases) 68,  69,  70 

Fourth  Section  Application  No.  1243  (Portland  Case) 79 

Free  Cartage  Case  (Stone  &  Garten) 8 

Freight  Bureau  of  Chicago  v.  L.,  N.  A.  &  C.  Ry.  Co 19 

Freight  Bureau  of  Cincinnati  Chamber  of  Commerce  v.  C.,  N.  O.  &  T.  P.  Ry.  Co.  19 

Fruit  &  Vegetable  Protective  Asso.  of  Florida  v.  A.  C.  L.  R.  R.  Co 52 

Fruit  Exchange  of  Southern  California  v.  S.  P.  Co 26 

Galveston,  Harrisburg  &  San  Antonio  Ry.  Co.,  Aransas  Pass  Channel  &  Dock 

Co.  v 90 

Galveston,  Harrisburg  &  San  Antonio  Ry.  Co.  v.  U.  S 91 

Galveston  Wharfage  Case 45 

Georgia  Railroad  Commission  v.  C.,  N.  O.  &  T.  P.  Ry.  Co 14 

Georgia  Railroad  Commission  v.  Clyde  Steamship  Co 14 

Georgia  Railroad  Commission  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co 14 

Georgia  Railroad  Commission  v.  Ocean  Steamship  Co 14 

Georgia  Railroad  Commission  v.  South  Carolina  R.  R.  Co 14 

Georgia  Railroad  Commission  v.  Western  &  Atlantic  R.  R.  Co 14 

Georgia  R.  R.  Co.,  Heard  v 

Georgia  R.  R.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Colored  Passenger  Case) 

Gerke  Brewing  Co.  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co 18 

Goodrich  Transit  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C 72,73 

Grain  Exchange  of  Nashville  v.  United  States 60 

Great  Northern  Ry.  Co.,  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Minneapolis  v 17 

Great  Northern  Ry .  Co.  v .  I .  C.  C.  (Northwestern  Lumber  Cases) 59 

Great  Northern  Ry.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Sleeping  Car  Case) 63 


101 

Pajre. 

Great  Northern  By.  Co.  v.  Kalispell  Lumber  Co 57 

Greater  Des  Moines  Committee  v.  C.,  R.  I.  &  P.  Ry.  Co 60 

Griffen  Case 23 

Gustintt.  B.  &M.  R.  R.  R.  Co.  in  Nebr 25 

Hampton  Board  of  Trade  v.  N.,  C. '  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co 25 

Harriman?;.  I.  C.  C 39 

Hay  Classification  Case 27 

Heard  v.  Georgia  R.  R.  Co 7 

Hearst  v.  P.  &  R.  Ry.  Co 28 

Hecker-Jones-Jewell  Milling  Co.  v.  B.  &  O.  R.  R.  Co 50 

Hillsdale  Coal  &  Coke  Co.  v.  Pa.  R.  R.  Co 71 

Hooker  v.  Knapp 65 

Hooker  &  Williamson  v.  Knapp 64 

Hope  Cotton  Oil  Co.  v.  T.  &  P.  Ry.  Co 35 

Hopkins  Case 14 

Hours  of  Service  Reports 46, 47, 48,  49 

Houston,  East  &  West  Texas  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States  (Shreveport  Case) 80 

Humboldt  Steamship  Co.,  United  States  ex  rel.,  I.  C.  C.  v 66 

Humboldt  Steamship  Co.  v.  White  Pass  &  Yukon  Route  (Alaska  Case) 65 

Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co. ,  Bartlett  Commission  Co.  v 36 

Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  Central  Yellow  Pine  Asso.  v 33 

Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  Darnell  v.  (Thompson  Lumber  Case) 42 

Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Traer  Car  Distribution  Case) 41 

Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Yellow  Pine  Lumber  Case 34 

Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  Metropolis  Commercial  Club  v 93 

Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  Thompson  Lumber  Co.  v 41 

Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  Traer  v 40 

Illinois  Central  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States  (Battle  Creek  Fourth  Section  Case) . .  89 

Illinois  Collieries  Co.  v.  C.  &  A.  R.  R.  Co 40 

Import  Rate  Case 9 

In  re  Advances  on  Bituminous  Coal 79 

In  re  Advances  on  Coal  on  Stony  Fork  Branch 90 

In  re  Alleged  Unlawful  Charges  for  Transportation  from  Chicago  by  the  B.  &  O. 

R.  R.  Co 14 

In  re  Alleged  Unlawful  Rates  charged  by  the  C.  &  O.  Ry.  Co 28 

In  re  Allowances  for  Transfer  of  Sugar 53 

In  re  Allowances  to  Elevators  by  the  Union  Pacific  R.  R.  Co 31 

In  re  Application  for  Relief  under  Fourth  Section  Nos.  205,  342,  343,  344,  349, 

350,  352.  (Intermountain  Cases) 68,  69,  70 

In  re  Calumet  &  Blue  Island  Ry.  Co.  (Brimson  Case) 13 

In  re  Consolidation  of  Carriers 39 

In  re  Fourth  Section  Application  No.  1952 88 

In  re  Fourth  Section  Application  of  Southern  Pacific  Co.  No.  1243 79 

In  re  Hours  of  Service  Reports 46-49 

In  re  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  (Brimson  Case) 13 

In  re  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  (Hopkins  Case) 14 

In  re  Pipe  Lines 87 

In  re  Precooling  and  Preicing 75 

In  re  Private  Cars  (Immunity  of  Witness  Case) 93 

In  re  Proposed  Contract  between  the  Union  Stock  Yards  &  Transit  Co.,  Pfaelzer 

&  Sons 39 

In  re  Rates  on  Coal  by  L.  &  N.  R.  R  Co 11 

In  re  Reports  of  Water  Carriers 72,  73,  74 


102 

Page. 

In  re  Restricted  Rates 75 

In  re  Sugar,  Allowances  for  Transfer  of 53 

In  re  Through  Passenger  Routes  via  Portland,  Ore 59 

In  re  Transportation  by  Common  Carriers  in  cars  not  owned  by  said  Common 

Carrier 31 

In  re  Uniform  System  of  Accounts  for  Steam  Railroads 38 

In  re  Water  Carriers,  Reports  of 72,  73,  74 

Independent  Refiners'  Asso.  of  Titusville  v .  P.  R.  R.  Co , .  15 

Independent  Refiners'  Asso.  of  Titusville  v.  W.  N.  Y.  &  P.  R.  R.  Co 15 

Industrial  Delivery  Case  (Los  Angeles) 63 

Industrial  Delivery  Case  (San  Francisco) 64 

Industrial  Railways  Case 92 

Interchange  of  Traffic  Cases 11 

Intermountain  Case — Phoenix 69 

Intermountain  Case — Reno 67 

Intermountain  Case — Salt  Lake  Case 70 

Intermountain  Case — Spokane 70 

International  Salt  Co.  of  Illinois  v.  P.  R.  R.  Co 76 

International  Salt  Co.  of  Illinois  v .  United  States 76 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  A.  M.  Ry.  Co 18 

v.  A.,  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  (San  Bernardino  Case) 9 

A.,  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Lemon  Case) 67 

A.,  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Intermountain  Case— Phoenix) 69 

A.,  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Los  Angeles  Switching  Case) 63 

A.,  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Orange  Routing  Case) 27 

A.  C.  L.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  (Boston  Shoe  Case) 62 

v.  Baird 28 

B.  &  O.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  (Hours  of  Service  Case) 46 

v.  B.  &  0.  R.  R.  Co.  (Party  Rate  Case) 8 

v.  B.  &  O.  R.  R.  Co.  (Restricted  Rate  Case) 76 

B.  &  O.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  (Rail  &  River  Car  Distribution  Case) 44 

v.  Bellaire,  Z.  &  C.  Ry.  Co.  (Mandamus  Case) 23 

v.  Brimson 14 

B.  &  M.  R.  R.  v.  (Hours  of  Service  Report  Case) 48 

C.  R.  R.  Co.  of  N.  J.  v.  (Hours  of  Service  Case) 46 

v.  C.  &  O.  Ry.  Co 29 

v.  C.  &  A.  R.  R.  Co.  (Traer  Car  Distribution  Case) 41 

v.  C.,  B.  &  Q.  R.  R.  Co.  (Chicago  Terminal  Switching  Case) 29 

v.  C.,  B.  &  Q.  R.  R.  Co.  (Denver  Rate  Case) 57 

v.  Chicago  Great  Western  Ry .  Co.  (Chicago  Live  Stock  Case) 33 

C.,M.  &St.  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Cardiff  Coal  Case) 41 

C.,  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Flaxseed  Case) 55 

C.,  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry  Co  v.  (Through  Rate  Case) 50 

v.  C.,  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry.  Co.  (Minneapolis  Grain  Case) 17 

C.,  R.  I.  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Des  Moines  Proportional  Rate  Case) 60 

C.,  R.  I.  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Missouri  River  Rate  Case) 50 

C.,  R.  I.  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Denver  Rate  Case) 57 

v.  C.,  H.  &  D.  Ry.  Co.  (Soap  Classification  Case) 28 

v.  C.,  N.  0.  &  T.  P.  Ry.  Co.  (Georgia  Commission  Case) 15 

v.  C.,  N.  O.  &T.  P.  Ry.  Co.  (Maximum  Rate  Case) 20 

v.  C.,  N.  O.  &T.  P.  Ry.  Co.  (Social  Circle  Case) 12 

v.  C.,  P.  &  V.  R.  R.  Co...                  26 


103 

I'age. 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission  v.  Clyde  Steamship  Co.  (Georgia  Commission 

Cases) 15 

Crane  Iron  Works  v 56 

.  D.,  L.  &  W.  R.  R.  Co.  (Consolidated  Shipment  Case) 51 

>.,  L.  &  W.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  (Hours  of  Service  Case) 47 

;.  D.,  L.  &  W.  R.  R.  Co.  (Rahway  Valley  Case) 45 

D.,  L.  &  W.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  (Station  Facilities  Case) 38 

v.  D.,  L.  &  W.  R.  R.  Co.  (Window  Shades  Case) 19 

D.  &  R.  G.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  (Leadville  Beer  Case) 61 

v.  Detriot,  G.  H.  &  M.  Ry.  Co 8 

v.  Diffenbaugh 32 

Eagle  White  Lead  Co.  v 65 

v.  E.  T.,  V.  &  G.  Ry.  Co.  (Chattanooga  Board  of  Trade  Case) 17 

v.  Ellis  (Immunity  of  Witness  Case) 93 

Erie  R.  R.  Co.  v.  (Hours  of  Service  Case) 49 

v.  G.  R.  R.  Co.  (Colored  Passenger  Case) 7 

v.  Goodrich  Transit  Co ' 73 

Great  Northern  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Sleeping  Car  Case) 63 

v.  Great  Northern  Ry.  Co.  (Northwestern  Lumber  Cases) 59 

v.  Harriman 39 

v.I.G.  R.  R.  Co.  (Traer  Car  Distribution  Case) 41 

v.  I.  C.  R.  R.  Co.  (Yellow  Pine  Lumber  Case) : 34 

In  re  (Brimson  Case) 13 

In  re  (Hopkins  Case) 14 

Kahn  v 39 

V.L.S.&  M.  S.  Ry.  Co  (National  Hay  Classification  Case) 27 

v.  L.  V.  R.  R.  Co.  (Coxe  Bros.  Coal  Case) 10 

L.  V.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  (Hours  of  Service  Case) 48 

v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.  (La  Grange  Case) 24 

v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.  (Manufacturers  Coal  Rate  Case) 11 

v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.  (Middlesborough  Beer  Case) 18 

v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.  (New  Orleans  Board  of  Trade  Case) 61 

v.  L.  &N.  R.  R.  Co.  (Tifton  Case) 26 

M.,  K.  &  T.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Texas  Live  Stock  Case) 37 

v.  M.  &  0.  R.  R.  Co.  (Aberdeen  Group  Case) 33 

v.  N.,  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co.  (Colored  Passenger  Case) 38 

v.  N.,  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co.  (Hampton  Case) 26 

N.  Y.  C.  &  H.  R.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  (Buffalo  Grain  Case) 40 

N.  Y.  C.  &  H.  R.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  (Hecker-Jones-Jewell  Case) 51 

N.  Y.  C.  &  H.  R.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  (Hours  of  Service  Case)... 47 

N.  Y.,  N.  H.  &H.  R.  R.  Go.  v.  (C.  &  O.  Coal  Case) 29 

N.  Y.,  N.  H.  &H.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  (Hours  of  Service  Case) 48 

N.  Y.,  0.  &  W.  Ry.  Co.  v 46 

v.  N.  Y.,  P.  &N.  R.  R.  Co.  (Delaware  State  Grange  Case) 10 

v.  N.  E.  R.  R.  Co.  of  S.  C.  (Charleston  Truck  Farmers'  Case) 21 

v.  N.  P.  Ry.  Co.  (Northwestern  Lumber  Cases) 59 

v.  N.  P.  Ry.  Co.  (Portland  Gateway  Case) 59 

v.  N.  P.  R.  R.  Co.  (Raworth  Case). 13 

v.  N.  P.  Ry.  Co.  (St.  Cloud  Case) 24 

v.  Ocean  Steamship  Co 15 

O.  &C.  B.  S.  Ry.  Co.  v 62 

v.  Peavey  &  Co 32 

P.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  (Car  Distribution  Case— Hillsdale) 72 


104 

Page. 

Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  P.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  (Hours  of  Service  Case) 47 

v.  P.  &  R.  Ry.  Co.  (Baird  Case) 28 

P.  &  R.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Cement  Rate  Case) 93 

P.  &  R.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Big  Vein  Coal  Case) 61 

P.  &  R.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Hours  of  Service  Case) 48 

Pullman  Co.  v 63 

v.  Reiclimann 31 

Russe  &  Burgess  v 43 

S.  C.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Orange  Routing  Case) 27 

S.  P.  Co.  v.  (Intermountain  Case — Reno) 68 

v.  S.  P.  Co.  (Iron  Rate  Case) 22 

v.  S.  P.  Co.  (Kearney  Case) 25 

v,  S.  P.  Co.  (Orange  Routing  Case) 27 

S.  P.  Co.  v.  (Sacramento  Rate  Case) 71 

S.  P.  Co.  v.  (Willamette  Valley  Lumber  Case) 43 

S.  P.  T.  Co.  v.  (Galveston. Wharfage  Case) 45 

v.  S.  Ry.  Co.  (Danville  Case) 25 

v.  S.  Ry.  Co.  (Piedmont  Case) • 22 

v.  Stickney  (Chicago  Terminal  Switching  Case) 30 

v.  T.  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  (Import  Rate  Case) 9 

Thompson  Lumber  Co.  v 42 

v.  U.  P.  R.  R.  Co.  (Northwestern  Lumber  Case) 59 

United  States  ex  rel.  American  Steel  &  Wire  Co.  v 92 

United  States  ex  rel.  v.  C.  &  0.  Ry.  Co.  (C.  &  0.  Coal  Case) 29 

v.  United  States  ex  rel.  Humboldt  Steamship  Co 66 

United  States  ex  rel.  Louisville  Cement  Co.  v 91 

United  States  ex  rel.  Snell  v 92 

Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  v 51 

v.  W.  &  A.  R.  R.  Co.  (Georgia  Commission  Cases) 15 

v.  W.  N.  Y.  &  P.  R.  R.  Co 16 

W.  &  L.  C.  Ry.  Co.  v 82 

Iron  Rate  Case 21 

Jacoby  v.  P.  Co 72 

Jacoby  v.  P.  R.  R.  Co 72 

James  &  Mayer  Buggy  Co.  v,  C.,  N.  O.  &  T.  P.  Ry.  Co 11 

Jobbers  &  Manufacturers  Asso.  of  Pacific  Coast  v.  S.  P.  Co 64 

Kahn  v.  I.  C.  C 39 

Kalispell  Lumber  Co.  v.  G.  N.  Ry.  Co 57 

Kansas  City  Board  of  Trade  v.  United  States 80 

Kansas  City  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  Arkansas  Fertilizer  Co.  v 89 

Kansas  City  Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States  (Abandoned  Property  Case).. .  38 

Kearney  Case 25 

Kellogg  Toasted  Corn  Flake  Co.  v.  M.  C.  R.  R.  Co 89 

Kentucky  &  Indiana  Bridge  Co.  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co 7 

Kindelv.  N.  Y.,  N.  H.  &  H.  R.  R.  Co . 56 

KiserCo.  v.  C.  of  Ga.  Ry.  Co 62 

Knapp,  Hooker  &  Williamson  v 64 

Knapp  v.  Lake  Shore  &  Michigan  Southern  Ry.  Co.  (Mandamus  Case) 35 

La  Grange  Case 

Lake  Shore" &  Michigan  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  Flint  &  Walling  Mfg.  Co.  v 50 

Lake  Shore  &  Michigan  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  r.  (Hay  Classification  Case).  27 


105 

Page. 

Lake  Shore  &  Michigan  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  Knapp  v 35 

Lake  Shore  &  Michigan  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  National  Hay  Asso.  v 27 

Leadville  Beer  Case 49,  61 

Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Clark 55 

Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co.,  Coxe  Bros.  &  Co.  v 10 

Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co.,  Flour  City  Steamship  Co.  v 88 

Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Coxe  Bros.  Coal  Case) 10 

Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Hours  of  Service  Case) 48 

Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co.,  Meeker  &  Co.  v 77 

Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co.,  Naylor  &  Co.  v 54 

Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States  (Anthracite  Coal  Case— Meeker) ..  77 

Lehigh  Valley  R.R.  Co.,  U.  S.  v.  (Commissions  to  Import  Agents) 93 

Lehigh  Valley  R.  R.  Co.,  United  States  ex  rel.  Flour  City  Line  v 88 

Lemon  Case 66 

Lighterage  Allowance  Case — Federal  Sugar. 53 

Loftus  v.  Pullman  Co 63 

Long  Island  R.  R.  Co.,  United  States  ex  rel.  Morrison  v 22 

Los  Angeles,  Associated  Jobbers  of,  v.  A.,  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co 63 

Louisiana  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co.,  A.,  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v 82 

Louisiana  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States 81 

Louisiana  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co.,  United  States  v 82 

Louisiana  R.  R.  Commission  v.  St.  L.  S.  W.  Ry.  Co 80 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.,  Behlmer  v.  (Summerville  Hay  Case) 20 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.,  Bowling  Green  Business  Men's  Protective 

i  OO 

Asso.  v oo 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. ,  Brewer  &  Hanleiter  v 23 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. ,  Callaway  v 24 

Louisville  &  Nashville  Coal  &  Coke  Rates 89 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Dickerson 56 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. ,  Gerke  Brewing  Go.  v 18 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. ,  In  re  Rates  on  Coal  by 11 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. ,  v.  I.  C.  C.  (La  Grange  Case) 24 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.R.  Co.  ,1.0.0.1?.  (Manufacturers'  Coal  Rate  Case) ...  11 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.R.  Co. ,1.0.0. v.  (Middlesborough  Beer  Case) 18 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (New  Orleans  Board  of  Trade  Case) .  61 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Tifton  Case) 26 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.,  K.  &  I.  Bridge  Co.  v 7 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.,  Louisville  Cement  Co.  v 91 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.,  Lucas  &  Co.  v 36 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. ,  Mayor  &  Council  of  Tifton,  v 26 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.,  New  Orleans  Board  of  Trade  v 61 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.,  R.  R.  Commission  of  Georgia  v 14 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. ,  Rosenbaum  Bros,  v 78 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co. ,  St.  Louis  Hay  &  Grain  Go.  v 36 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.,  Shinkle,  Wilson  &  Kreis  Co.  v.  (Maximum 

Rate  Case) 19 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.,  Traffic  Bureau  of  Nashville,  v 91 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States  (Bowling  Green  Fourth 

Section  Case) 88 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States  (Coal  Rates) 90 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.,  v.  United  States  (Chicago  Proportional  Rate 

Case) : 78 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States  (Nashville  Case) 91 


106 


Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States  (Transit  Privilege  Case)  ____  60 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.,  United  States  ex  rel  Attorney  General,  v.  ..  94 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.,  United  States  ex  rel.  Stony  Fork  Coal  Co.  v..  90 

Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.,  Woodward  &  Dickerson  v  ................  55 

Louisville  Cement  Co.  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co  ..................................  91 

Louisville,  New  Albany  &  Chicago  Ry.  Co.,  Chicago  Freight  Bureau  v.  (Maxi- 

mum Rate  Case)  ........................................................  19 

Lucas  &  Co.  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co  ...........................................  36 

Lumber  Manufacturers'  Asso.  of  Western  Oregon  v.  S.  P.  Co  ................  43 

McClelen?;.  S.  Ry.  Co  ....................................................  22 

Mack  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  P.,  C.,  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co  .......................  80 

Mack  Manufacturing  Co.  v.  United  States  ...................................  80 

Mandamus  Cases  ............................................  22,  23,  35,  90,  91,  92,  94 

Mansfield  Ry.  &  Trans.  Co.,  A.,  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v  ........................  85 

Mansfield  Ry.  &  Transportation  Co.  v.  United  States  .........................  85 

Manufacturers'  Coal  Rate  Case  .............................................  11 

Maricopa  County  Commercial  Club  v.  S.  F.,  P.  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  (Interniountam 

Case—  Phoenix)  .........................................................  69 

Maricopa  County  Commercial  Club  v.  S.  F.,  P.  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  (Intermountain 

Case—  Reno)  .......................  ....................................  68 

Maximum  Rate  Case  .........................  .  .............................  19 

Mayor  &  Council  of  Tifton  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co  ..............................  26 

Meeker  &  Co.  v.  L.  V.  R.  R.  Co  ............................................  77 

Memphis  &  Charleston  R.  R.  Co.  ,  Behlmer  v  ...............................  20 

Merchants'  Exchange  of  St.  Louis,  Traffic  Bureau  v.  Chicago,  B.  &  Q.  R.  R.  Co.  32 

Merchants'  Exchange,  Traffic  Bureau  of  San  Francisco  v.  S.  P.  Co  ..............  71 

Merchants'  Union  of  Spokane  Falls  v.  N.  P.  R.  R.  Co  ........................  16 

Meridith  v.  St.  L.  S.  W.  Ry.  Co  ...........................................  80 

Metropolis  Commercial  Club  v.  I.  C.  R.  R.  Co  ................................  93 

Michigan  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  Kellogg  Toasted  Corn  Flake  Co.  T;  ................  89 

Michigan  Central  R.  R.  Co.,  National  Hay  Asso.  v  ..........................  27 

Middlesborough  Beer  Case  ..................................................  18 

Minneapolis  Chamber  of  Commerce  v.  G.  N.  Ry.  Co  ..........................  17 

Minneapolis  Grain  Case  ....................................................  17 

Missouri,  Kansas  &  Texas  Ry.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Texas  Live  Stock  Rate  Case).  .  .  37 

Missouri,  Kansas  &  Texas  Ry.  Co.,  Cattle  Raisers  Asso.  of  Texas  v  .............  36 

Missouri  Pacific  Ry.  Co.,  Baer  Bros.  Mercantile  Co.  v  .........................  49,  61 

Missouri  River  Rate  Case  ..........................................  .,  ........  50 

Mobile  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.,  Aberdeen  Group  Commercial  Asso.  v  ...............  33 

Mobile  &  OhioR.  R.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v  .........................................  33 

Mobile  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.,  Mobile  Chamber  of  Commerce  v  ....................  87 

Mobile  &  Ohio  R.  R.  Co.,  St.  Louis  Hay  &  Grain  Co.  v  ............  ..........  35 

Mobile  Chamber  of  Commerce  v.  M.  &  O.  R.  R.  Co.  ,  .........................  87 

Morrison,  United  States  ex  rel.  v.  Long  Island  R.  R.  Co  .....................  22 

Nashville,  Chattanooga  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co.,  Board  of  Trade  of  Hampton  v  ----  25 

Nashville,  Chattanooga  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co.,  Duncan  &  Co.  v  ................  59 

Nashville,  Chattanooga  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co.,  Edwards  v  ......................  3S 

Nashville,  Chattanooga  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Colored  Passenger  Case)  .  3H 

Nashville,  Chattanooga  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Hampton  Case)  ......  26 

Chattanooga  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co.,  United  States  ex  rel  Attorney 

alv  ...............................................................  04 

e  Grain  Exchange  v.  United  States  (Transit  Privilege  Case)  ...........  »>() 


107 

Page. 

Nashville  Traffic  Bureau  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co 91 

National  Hay  Asso.  v.  L.  S.  &  M.  S.  Ry.  Co 27 

National  Hay  Asso.  v.  M.  C.  R.  R.  Co 27 

Naylor  &  Co.  v.  L.  V.  R.  R.  Co 54 

Nevada  Railroad  Commission  y.  S.  P.  Co.  (Intermountain  Case — Phoenix). 69 

Nevada  Railroad  Commission  v.  S.  P.  Co.  (Intermountain  Case — Reno) 67 

New  Orleans  Board  of  Trade  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co 61 

Newport  News  Chamber  of  Commerce  v.  S.  Ry.  Co 86 

Newport  News  Rate  Case 86 

New  York  &  New  England  Ry.  Co.,  N.  Y.  &  N.  Ry.  Co.  v 11 

New  York  &  Northern  Ry.  Co.  v.  N.  Y.  &  N.  E.  R.  R.  Co 11 

New  York  Board  of  Trade  v.  P.  R.  R.  Co 9 

New  York  Central  &  Hudson  River  R.  R.  Co.,  American  Sugar  Refining  Co.  v. 

(Lighterage  Allowance  Case) 53 

New  York  Central  &  Hudson  River  R.  R.  Co,,  Banner  Milling  Co.  v 40 

New  York  Central  &  Hudson  River  R.  R.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C 40 

New  York  Central  &  Hudson  River  R.  R.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Hecker- Jones- Jewell 

Case) 51 

New  York  Central  &  Hudson  River  R.  R.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Hours  of  Service  Case). .  47 
New  York,  New  Haven  &  Hartford  R.  R.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Chesapeake  &  Ohio 

Coal  Case) 29 

New  York,  New  Haven  &  Hartford  R.  R.  Co.  v.l.G.  C.  (Hours  of  Service  Case). .  48 

New  York,  New  Haven  &  Hartford  R.  R.  Co.,  Kindel  v 56 

New  York,  New  Haven  &  Hartford  R.  R.  Co.  v.  U.  S.  (Commutation  Case).  .  .  91 

New  York,  Ontario  &  Western  Ry.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Hours  of  Service  Case) 46 

New  York,  Philadelphia  &  Norfolk  R.  R.  Co.,  Delaware  State  Grange  v 10 

New  York,  Philadelphia  &  Norfolk  R.  R.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Delaware  State  Grange 

Case) 10 

Norfolk  &  Western  Ry.  Co.,   Corporation  Commission  of  North  Carolina  v. 

(Winston-Salem  Case) ?2 

Norfolk  &  Western  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States  (Winston-Salem  Case) 72 

North  Carolina  Corporation  Commission  v.  N.  &  W.  Ry.  Co.  (Winston-Salem 

Case) 72 

Northeastern  R.  R.  Co.  of  South  Carolina,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Charleston  Truck  Farmers 

Case) 21 

Northeastern  R.  R.  Co.  of  South  Carolina,  Truck  Farmers'  Asso.  of  Charleston  v. .  21 

Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co.,  City  of  St.  Cloud  v 24 

Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co.,  City  of  Spokane  v 70 

Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co.,  Farmers'  Loan  &  Trust  Co.  v 17 

Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Northwestern  Lumber  Cases) 59 

Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.I.G.  C.  (Portland  Gateway  Case) 59 

Northern  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Raworth  Case) 13 

Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (St.  Cloud  Case) 24 

Northern  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.,  Merchants'  Union  of  Spokane  Falls  v 16 

Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  Pacific  Coast  Lumber  Mfrs.  Asso 58 

Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co.,  Potlatch  Lumber  Go.  v 57 

Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co.,  Raworth  v 13 

Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co.,  Southwest  Washington  Lumber  Mfrs.  Asso.  v 58 

Northern  Pacific  Ry.  Co.,  Tileston  Milling  Co.  v 24 

Northwestern  Lumber  Cases 57 

Ocean  Steamship  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Georgia  Commission  Cases) 15 

Ocean  Steamship  Co.  Railroad  Commission  of  Georgia  v 14 

O'Gara  Coal  Co.  v.  United  States. . .  79 


108 

Page. 

Ohio  Oil  Co.  v.  United  States 87 

Omaha  &  Council  Bluffs  Ry.  &  Bridge  Co.,  West  End  Improvement  Club  v. ..  62 

Omaha  &  Council  Bluffs  Street  Ry.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C 62 

Omaha  Commercial  Club  v.  A.  &  S.  R.  Ry.  Co 66 

Prange  Routing  Case 26 

Oregon  &  Washington  Lumber  Mfrs.  Asso.  v.  S.  P.  Co.  (Willamette  Valley 

Lumber  Case) 44 

Oregon  &  Washington  Lumber  Mfrs.  Asso.  v.  U.  P.  R.  R.  Co 58 

Pacific  Coast  Jobbers  &  Mfrs.  Asso.  v.  S.  P.  Co 64 

Pacific  Coast  Lumber  Mfrs.  Asso.  v.  N.  P.  Ry.  Co 57 

Page*;.  D.  L.  &  W.  R.  R.  Co 19 

Party  Rate  Case 8 

Peavey  &  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v 32 

Peavey  &  Co.  v.  U.  P.  R.  R.  Co 32 

Perm  Refining  Co.  v.  W.  N.  Y.  &  P.  R.  R.  Co 16 

Pennsylvania  Co.,  Buffalo,  Rochester  &  Pittsburgh  Ry.  Co.  v 92 

Pennsylvania  Co.,  Jacoby  v 72 

Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  United  States , 92 

Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.,  Bulah  Coal  Co.  v 72 

Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.,  Clark  Bros.  Coal  Mining  Go.  v 72 

Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.,  Hillsdale  Coal  &  Coke  .Co.  v 71 

Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.,  Independent  Refiners  Asso.  of  Titusville  v 15 

Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.,  International  Salt  Co.  of  Illinois  v 76 

Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Car  Distribution  Case) 72 

Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Hours  of  Service  Case) 47 

Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.,  Jacoby  v 72 

Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.,  New  York  Beard  of  Trade  v 9 

Pfaelzer  &  Sons,  Union  Stock  Yards  &  Transit  Co. ,  Proposed  Contract  between. .  39 

Philadelphia  &  Reading  Ry.  Co.,  Allentown  Portland  Cement  Co.  v 93 

Philadelphia  &  Reading  Ry.  Co.,  Crane  R.  R.  Co.  v 56 

Philadelphia  &  Reading  Ry.  Co.,  Hearst  v 28 

Philadelphia  &  Reading  Ry.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Baird  Case) 28 

Philadelphia  &  Reading  Ry.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Cement  Rate  Case) 93 

Philadelphia  &  Reading  Ry.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Big  Vein  Coal  Case) 61 

Philadelphia  &  Reading  Ry.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Hours  of  Service  Case) 48 

Phoenix  Case 69 

Piedmont  Case 22 

Pipe  Line  Case 87 

Pittsburgh,  Cincinnati  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co.  v.  B.  &  O.  R.  R.  Co.  (Party  Rate 

Case) 8 

Pittsburgh,  Cincinnati,  Chicago  &  St.  Louis  Ry.  Co.,  Mack  Manufacturing 

Co.  v 80 

Portland  Fourth  Section  Case 79 

Portland  Gateway  Case 59 

Portland,  Oreg.,  Through  Passenger  Routes  via 59 

Potlatch  Lumber  Co.  v.  N.  P.  Ry.  Co 57 

Potlatch  Lumber  Co.  v.  S.  F.  &  N.  Ry.  Co 57 

Prairie  Oil  &  Gas  Co.  v.  United  States 87 

Precooling  Case 75 

Preston  &  Davis  v.  D.,  L.  &  W.  R.  R.  Co 37 

Private  Car  Demurrage  Case 74 

Procter  &  Gamble  Co.  v.  C.,  H.  &  D.  Ry.  Co 28,  74 


109 

Page. 

Procter  &  Gamble  Co.  v.  C.,  H.  &  D.  By.  Co.  (Soap  Classification  Case). . : . .   .  28 

Procter  &  Gamble  v.  United  States 74 

Proportional  Rate  Case  (Des  Moines) 60 

Pullman  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C 63 

Pullman  Co..  Loftus  v 63 

Pulp  &  Paper  Mfrs.  Traffic  Asso.  v.  C.,  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry.  Co 90 

Railway  Valley  R.  R.  Co.  v.  D.,  L.  &  W.  R.  R.  Co 45 

Rail  &  River  Coal  Co.  v.  B.  &  O.  R.  R.  Co 44 

Railroad  Commission  of  Florida  v.  S.,  F.  &  W.  Ry.  Co .12 

Railroad  Commissioners  of  Florida  v.  S.  A.  L.  Ry.  Co 52 

Railroad  Commission  of  Georgia  v.  C.,  N.  O.  &  T.  P.  Ry.  Co 14 

Railroad  Commission  of  Georgia  v.  Clyde  Steamship  Co 14 

Railroad  Commission  of  Georgia  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co 14 

Railroad  Commission  of  Georgia  v.  Ocean  Steamship  Co 14 

Railroad  Commission  of  Georgia  v.  South  Carolina  R.  R.  Co 14 

Railroad  Commission  of  Georgia  v.  W.  &  A.  R.  R.  Co 14 

Railroad  Commission  of  Louisiana  v.  St.  L.  S.  W.  Ry.  Co ' 80 

Railroad  Commission  of  Nevada  v.  S.  P.  Co.  (Inte'rmountain  Case— Phoenix) ..  69 

Railroad  Commission  of  Nevada  v.  S.  P.  Co.  (Intermountain  Case — Reno) 67,  68 

Raworthu.  N.  P.  Ry.  Co 13 

Receivers  &  Shippers  Asso.  of  Cincinnati  v.  C.,  N.  O.  &  T.  P.  Ry.  Co 64,  65 

Reconsignment  Case 35 

Red  Rock  Fuel  Co.  v.  B.  &  O.  R.  R.  Co 37 

Red  Wing  Linseed  Co.  v.  C.,  M.  &  St.  P.  Ry.  Co 55 

Reichmann,  I.  C.  C.  v 31 

Reno  Case 67,  68 

Reports  of  Water  Carriers 72-74 

Restricted  Rate  Case 75 

Robert  D.  Benson  v.  United  States 87 

Rosenbaum  Bros.  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co 78 

Russe  &  Burgess  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Burgess  Lumber  Case) 43 

Sacramento  Rate  Case 71 

St.  Cloud  v.  ^N .  P.  Ry.  Co 24 

St.  Louis  Blast  Furnace  Co.  v.  Virginian  Ry.  Co 78 

St.  Louis  Hay  &  Grain  Co.  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co 36 

St.  Louis  Hay  &  Grain  Co.  v.  M.  &  O.  R.  R.  Co 35 

St.  Louis  Hay  &  Grain  Co.  v.  S.  Ry.  Co 36 

St.  Louis,  Iron  Mountain  &  Southern  Ry.  Co.,  Arkansas  Fertilizer  Co.  v 89 

St.  Louis,  Iron  Mountain  &  Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  U.  S 93 

St.  Louis  Southwestern  Ry.  Co.,  Meridith  v 80 

St.  Louis  Traffic  Bureau,  Merchants  Exchange  v.  C.,  B.  &  Q.  R.  R.  Co 32 

St.  Louis  Traffic  Bureau,  Merchants  Exchange  v.  C.,  B.  &  Q.  R.  R.  Co.  (Eleva- 
tion Allowance  Case) 32,  79 

Salt  Lake  City  Commercial  Club,  Traffic  Bureau  v.  A.,  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co 70 

San  Bernardino  Board  of  Trade  v.  A.,  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co 9 

San  Francisco  Switching  Case 64 

San  Francisco  Traffic  Bureau  of  Merchants'  Exchange  v.  S.  P.  Co 71 

Santa  Fe  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C 27 

Santa  Fe,  Prescott  &  Phoenix  Ry.  Co.  v.  Maricopa  County  Commercial  Club 

(Intermountain  Cases) 68,  69 

Savannah,  Florida  &  Western  Ry.  Co.,  Florida  Fruit  Exchange  v 12 

Savannah,  Florida  &  Western  Ry.  Co.,  Railroad  Commission  of  Florida  v 12 

Seaboard  Ry.  Co.,  U.  S.  ex  rel.  I.  C.  C.,  v 23 


110 

Page. 

Seaboard  Air  Line  Ry.  Co.,  Railroad  Commissioners  of  Florida  v 52 

Shinkle,  Wilson  &  Kreis  Co.  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.  (Maximum  Rate  Case) 19 

Shoe  Case 62 

Shreveport  Case 80 

>Sibley,  Lake  Bisteneau  &  Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States 83 

Sidetrack  Connecting  Case 37 

Sleeping  Car  Case 63 

Soap  Classification  Case 28 

Social  Circle  Case 11 

South  Carolina  R.  R.  Co.,  Railroad  Commission  of  Georgia  v 14 

Southern  California  Fruit  Exchange  v.  S.  P.  Co 26 

Southern  California  Ry.  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Orange  Routing  Case) 27 

Southern  Lumber  Case  (Omaha) 66 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  Arlington  Heights  Fruit  Co 67 

Southern  Pacific  Co.,  Arlington  Heights  Fruit  Exchange  v.  (Precooling  Case).  75 

Southern  Pacific  Co . ,  Arlington  Heights  Fruit  Exchange  v 67 

Southern  Pacific  Co.,  Colorado  Fuel  &  Iron  Co.  v 21 

Southern  Pacific  Co. ,  Consolidated'  Forwarding  Co.  v 26 

Southern  Pacific  Co.,  Darnell-Taenzer  Lumber  Co.  v.  (Burgess  Lumber  Case).  43 

Southern  Pacific  Co.,  Eichenberg  v 45 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Sacramento  Rate  Case) 71 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.I.  C.  C.  (San  Francisco  Switching  Case) 64 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Willamette  Valley  Lumber  Case) 43 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Intermountain  Case — Reno) 68 

Southern  Pacific  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Iron  Rate  Case) 22 

Southern  Pacific  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Kearney  Case) 25 

Southern  Pacific  Co..  I.  C.  C.  v.  (San  Francisco  Switching  Case) 64 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Orange  Routing  Case) 27 

Southern  Pacific  Co.,  Oregon  &  Washington  Lumber  Mfrs.  Asso.  v 44 

Southern  Pacific  Co.,  Pacific  Coast  Jobbers  &  Mfrs.  Asso.  v 64 

Southern  Pacific  Co.,  Railroad  Commission  of  Nevada  v.  (Intermountain  Case — 

Phoenix) . 69 

Southern  Pacific  Co.,  Railroad  Commission  of  Nevada  v.  (Intermountain  Case — 

Reno) 67,  68 

Southern  Pacific  Co.,  Southern  California  Fruit  Exchange  v 26 

Southern  Pacific  Co.,  Traffic  Bureau  of  Merchants'  Exchange  of  San  Fran- 
cisco v 71 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  United  States  (Portland  Fourth  Section  Case) 79 

Southern  Pacific  Co.  v.  United  States  (Willamette  Valley  Lumber  Case) 44 

.Southern  Pacific  Co.,  Western  Oregon  Lumber  Mfrs.  Asso.  v 43 

Southern  Pacific  Terminal  Co.  v.  1.  C.  C.  (Galveston  Wharfage  Case) 45 

Southern  Ry.  Co.,  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Augusta  v 78 

Southern  Ry.  Co.,  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Chattanooga  v 18 

Southern  Ry.  Co.,  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Newport  News  v 86 

Southern  Ry.  Co.,  City  of  Danville  v 25 

Southern  Ry.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Danville  Case) 25 

Southern  Ry.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Piedmont  Case) 22 

Southern  Ry.  Co.,  McClelen  v 22 

Southern  Ry.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Hay  &  Grain  Co 36 

*y.  Co.  v.  Tift 34 

Hy.  Co.  v.  United  States  (Coke  Case) 78 

Ely.  Co.  v.  United  States  (Mobile  Wharfage  Case) 87 

Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States  (Newport  News  Rate  Case) 86 


Ill 

Page. 

Southwest  Washington  Lumber  Mfrs.  Asso.  v.  N.  P.  Ry.  Co 58 

Spokane  Case  (Old  Commission) 16, 17 

Spokane,  City  of,  v.  N.  P.  Ry.  Co 70 

Spokane  Falls  &  Northern  Ry.  Co.,  Potlatch  Lumber  Go.  v 57 

Spokane  Falls  Merchants'  Union  v.  N.  P.  R.  R.  Co 16 

Standard  Oil  Co.  v.  United  States  (Pipe  Line  Case) 87 

Standard  Oil  Co.  of  Louisiana  v.  United  States  (Pipe  Line  Case) 87 

Station  Facilities  Case 37 

Stickney  v.  I.  C.  C.  (Chicago  Terminal  Switching  Case) 30 

Stone  &  Garten  v.  D.,  G.  H.  &  M.  Ry.  Co 8 

Stony  Fork  Case 90 

Street  Railway  Case 62 

Summerville  Hay  Case 20 

Switching  Case  (Los  Angeles) 63 

Switching  Case  of  San  Francisco 64 

Tap  Line  Cases 81,  82,  83,  84,  85 

Tariff  Asso.  of  Wilmington  v.  C.  P.  &  V.  R.  R.  Co 26 

Terminal  Delivery  Case  (Los  Angeles) 63 

Terminal  Delivery  Case  (San  Francisco) 64 

Texas  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co. ,  Hope  Cotton  Oil  Co.  v 35 

Texas  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  I.  G.  C.  (Import  Rate  Case) 9 

Texas  &  Pacific  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States  (Shreveport  Case) 81 

Texas  Cattle  Raisers  Asso.  v.  M.,  K.  &  T.  Ry.  Co 36 

Texas  Cattle  Raisers  Asso.  v.  United  States 37 

Texas  Live  Stock  Rate  Case 36 

Thompson  Lumber  Co.  v.  I.  C.  R.  R.  Co 41 

Thompson  Lumber  Co.  w.  I.  C.  C 42 

Tift  v.  S.  Ry.  Co 34 

Tifton  Mayor  &  Council  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co 26 

Tileston  Milling  Co.  v.  N.  P.  Ry.  Co 24 

Titusville,  Independent  Refiners'  Asso.  v.  P.  R.  R.  Co 15 

Titusville,  Independent  Refiners'  Asso.  v.  W.  N.  Y.  &  P.  B.  R.  Co 15 

Traer  v.  I.  C.  R.  R.  Co 40 

Traer,  Receiver  of  Illinois  Collieries  Co. ,  v.  C.  &  A.  R.  R.  Co 40 

Traffic  Bureau,  Merchants'  Exchange  of  St.  Louis,  v.  C.,  B.  &  Q.  R.  R.  Co. . .  32,  79 

Traffic  Bureau  of  Merchants'  Exchange  of  San  Francisco  v.  S.  P.  Co 71 

Traffic  Bureau  of  Nashville  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co 91 

Traffic  Bureau  of  Salt  Lake  City  Commercial  Club  v.  A.,  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co. . .  70 

Trammell  v.  Clyde  Steamship  Co.  (Georgia  Commission  Cases) 14 

Transcontinental  Freight  Bureau,  Burgess  v 42 

Transfer  of  Sugar,  In  re  Allowances  for 53 

Transit  Privilege  Case 59 

Troy  Board  of  Trade  v.  A.  M.  Ry.  Co 18 

Truck  Farmers'  Asso.  of  Charleston  v.  N.  E.  R.  R.  Co.  of  S.  C 21 

Uncle  Sam  Oil  Co.  v.  United  States 87 

Union  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.,  in  re  Allowances  to  Elevators 31 

Union  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.  v.  I.  G.  C.  (Northwestern  Lumber  Cases) 59 

Union  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Oregon  &  Washington  Lumber  Mfrs.  Asso 58 

Union  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Peavey  &  Co 32 

Union  Pacific  R.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States  (Intermountain  Case — Spokane) 71 

Union  Stock  Yards  &  Transit  Co.,  United  States  v 39 

Union  Stock  Yards  &  Transit  Co.,  Pfaelzer  &  Sons  Co.,  Proposed  Contract 

between 39 

Union  Stock  Yards,  United  States  v 40 


112 

Pago. 

United  States,  Anaconda  Copper  Mining  Co.  v 75 

United  States,  Arkansas  Fertilizer  Co.  v 89 

United  States,  A.,  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Intermountain  Case— Phoenix) 69 

United  States,  A.,  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Intermountain  Case— Reno) 68 

United  States,  A.,  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Lemon  Case) 67 

United  States  D.  B.  &  O.  R.  R.  Co.  (Lighterage  Allowance  Case — Federal  Sugar) .  54 

United  States,  A.,  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Precooling  Case) 75 

United  States,  A.,  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Southern  Lumber  Case— Omaha) 66 

United  States,  B.  &  O.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  (Restricted  Rate  Case) 76 

United  States  v.  B.  &  O.  S.  W.  R.  R.  Co.  (Cincinnati  &  Columbus  Traction  Case).  76 

United  States  v.  B.  C.  R.  R.  Co.  (Tap  Line  Case) 84 

United  States,  Cattle  Raisers'  Asso.  of  Texas  v -. 37 

United  States  v.  C.  R.  R.  Co.  of  N.  J 89 

United  States,  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Augusta  v 78 

United  States,  Chicago  Junction  Ry.  Co.  v 40 

United  States,  Crane  Iron- Works  v 56 

United  State?,  Davis  v 80 

United  States,  D.  &  R.  G.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  (Intermountain  Case— Salt  Lake) 70 

United  States  v.  E.  R.  R.  Co 92 

United  States,  Florida  East  Coast  Ry.  Co.  v 53 

United  States,  G.,  H.  &  S.  A.  Ry.  Co.  v 91 

United  States,  Houston,  East  &  West  Texas  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Shreveport  Case) 80 

United  States,  I.  C.  it.  R.  Co.  v.  (Battle  Creek  Fourth  Section  Case) 89 

United  States,  International  Salt  Co.  of  Illinois  v 76 

United  States,  K.  C.  S.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Abandoned  Property  Case) 38 

United  States,  L.  V.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  (Anthracite  Coal  Case— Meeker) 77 

United  States  v.  L.  V.  R.  R.  Co.  (Commission  to  Import  Agents) 93 

United  States,  L.  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v 81,  82 

United  States  v.  L.  &  P.  Ry.  Co 82 

United  States,  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  (Bowling  Green  Fourth  Section  Case) . .  88 

United  States,  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  (Chicago  Proportional  Rate  Case) 78 

United  States,  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  (Coal  Rates) 90 

United  States,  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  (Nashville  Case) 91 

United  States,  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  (Transit  Privilege  Case) 60 

United  States,  Mack  Manufacturing  Co.  T; 80 

United  States  v.  Mansfield  Ry.  &  Transportation  Co 85 

United  States,  Nashville  Grain  Exchange  v.  (Transit  Privilege  Case) 60 

United  States,  N.  Y.,  N.  H.,  &  H.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  (Commutation  Case) 91 

United  States,  N.  &  W.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Winston-Salem  Case) 72 

United  States,  O'Gara  Coal  Co.  v 79 

United  States,  Ohio  Oil  Co.  v 87 

United  States,  Pennsylvania  Co.  v 92 

United  States  v.  Prairie  Oil  &  Gas  Co 87 

United  States,  Procter  &  Gamble  v 74 

United  States,  Robert  D.  Benson  v 87 

United  States,  St.  Louis,  Iron  Mountain  &  Southern  Ry.  Co.  v 93 

United  States,  S.,  L.  B.  &  S.  Ry.  Co.  T; 83 

United  States,  S.  P.  Co.  v .  (Portland  Fourth  Section  Case) 79 

United  States,  S.  P.  Co.  v.  (Willamette  Valley  Lumber  Case) 44 

ites,  S.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Coke  Case) 78 

ites,  S.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Mobile  Wharfage  Case) 87 

sites,  S.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Newport  News  Rate  Case) 86 

ates,  Standard  Oil  Co.  v 87 


113          ;..<*.  ..::'VK^::A 

Page. 

United  States,  Standard  Oil  Co.  of  Louisiana  i; 87 

United  States,  T.  &  P.  Ry.  Co.  v.  (Shreveport  Case) 81 

United  States  v.  Uncle  Sam  Oil  Co '. . . .  87 

United  State?,  U.  P.  R.  R.  Co.  v  (Intermountain  Case — Spokane) 71 

United  States  v.  Union  Stock  Yards 39 

United  States  v.  Union  Stock  Yards  &  Transit  Co 39 

United  States,  United  States  Pipe  Line  Co.  v 88 

United  States  v.  V.,  F.  &  W.  R.  R.  Co 86 

United  States  v.  W.  &  L.  C.  Ry.  Co 83 

United  States  v .  White  Star  Line 74 

United  States  ex  rel.  American  Steel  &  Wire  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C 72 

United  States  ex  rel.  Attorney  General  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co 94 

United  States  ex  rel.  Attorney  General  v.  X.,  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry.  Co 94 

United  States  ex  rel.  Flour  City  Line  v.  L.  V.  R.  R.  Co 88 

United  States  ex  rel.  Humboldt  Steamship  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C 65 

United  States  ex  rel.  I.  C.  C.  v.  C.  K.  &  S.  R.  R.  Co 23 

United  States  ex  rel.  I.  C.  C.  v.  Seaboard  Ry.  Co. . ..." 23 

United  States  ex  rel.  Knapp  v.  L.  S.  &  M.  S.  Ry.  Co 35 

United  States  ex  rel.  Louisville  Cement  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C 91 

United  States  ex  rel.  Morrison  v.  L.  I.  R.  R.  Co 22 

United  States  ex  rel.  Snell  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Commission 92 

United  States  ex  rel.  Stony  Fork  Coal  Co.  u.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co 90 

United  States  Pipe  Line  Co.  v.  United  States 88 

Victoria,  Fisher  &  Western  R,  R.  Co.,  A.,  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v 86 

Victoria ,  Fisher  &  Western  II.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States 86 

Virginian  fly.  Co.,  St .  Lends  Blast  Furnace  Co.  v 78 

Wabash  R .  R.  Co. .  Export  Shipping  Co.  v 51 

Wuter  Carriers'  Reports 72,  73,  74 

Wa  t  er  Li  no  Employee  -  Pass  Case 92 

Wells  Fargo  &  Co.,  California  Commercial  Asso.  v 51 

Wells  Fargo  &  Co.  v.  I.  C.  C 51 

West  End  Improvement  Club  v.  O.  &  C.  B.  Ry.  &  Bridge  Co 62 

Western  £  Atlantic  R.  R.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Georgia  Commission  Cases) 15 

Western  &  Atlantic  R.  R.  Co.,  Railroad  Commission  of  Georgia  v 14 

Western  New  York  &  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.,  Independent  Refiners'  Asso.  of 

Titnsville  v 15 

Western  New  York  <fe  Pennsylvania  11.  R.  Co.,  I.  C.  C.  v.  (Peim  Refining  Case). .  16 

Western  New  York  &  Pennsylvania  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Penn  Refining  Co 16 

Western  Oregon.  Lumber  Mfrs.  Asso.  v.  S.  P.  Co 43 

White  Pass  &  Yukon  Route,  Humboldt  Steamship  Co.  v.  (Alaska  Case) 65 

White  Star  Line  v.  United  States  (Report  of  Water  Carriers) 73,  74 

Willamette  Valley  Lumber  Cases £> 43 

Wilmington  Case L T. 26 

Wilmington  Tariff  Asso.  v.  C. ,  P.  &  V.  R.  R.  Co 26 

Window  Shades  Case 19 

Winston-Salem  Case 7.2 

Woodward  &  Dickerson  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co 55 

Woodworth  &  Louisiana  Central  Ry.  Co.,  A.,  T.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v 83 

Woodworth  &  Louisiana  Central  Ry.  Co.  u.  I.  C.  C 82 

Woodworth  &  Louisiana  Central  Ry.  Co.  v.  United  States 83 

Yellow  Pine  Lumber  Cases 33,  34 

58069—14 8 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
.OVERDUE. 


DEC     1?  1934 


00*49  ',>- 


2~":  it 


«AV20'65-6PI 


LD  21-100m-8,'34 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


